What can a landlord deduct from a deposit?

Pixie5740

Comms69 wrote: »

Actually the council tax issue is more complex. Tenants on a SPT are not liable for C Tax once they vacate.

Tenants in Scotland won't have a SPT

Comms69

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If I was a gambling Pixie I would put money on the tenant having a pet.

or changing the locks

FBaby

Loads of times tenants give the end date to the council and utilities of the day they start their new tenancy, there can be a few days to a few weeks overlap... Tenants are liable for bills until the tenancy is ended not when they move out. Councils and utility companies will seek the money from the landlord (especially councils) then it does become the landlords problem..

Indeed, got a tenant who called to cancel the utilities 3 weeks before they actually left. That's because the husband did leave early and made the call as under his name, whilst his wife and children remained for another 3 weeks. The utility company automatically billed me the LL despite showing them a copy of the ast (with a fixed term date after the date they were charging me with), a copy of their note to say they had left three weeks after the date they told them they had left. They were adamant that legally they had to go with what the tenant told them regardless of the proof I could submit.

The ADR thankfully cleared that one up and awarded with the cost of gas/electricity and water for that period with the same evidence.

buggy_boy

Comms69 wrote: »

Actually the council tax issue is more complex. Tenants on a SPT are not liable for C Tax once they vacate.

Who told you that? Its totally wrong, you will find in pretty much every tenancy agreement that the tenant remains liable for all utility and council tax bills until the end of the tenancy.

Pancake1302

Thanks all for your replies!

The alleged breach is not reporting damage in the house (not caused by us). The damage didn't worsen over time. They are attempting to deduct the whole cost of the repairs for the damage on the basis that they couldn't submit an insurance claim due to the time passed since the damage occurred. They have however refused to provide us with their excess information and we've now found out that they never intended to submit a claim due to a high excess but they are still attempting to deduct the whole sum from the deposit.

Is this something that they're likely to be able to claim a deduction for?

If only it had been an illicit pet - that would have at least brought me some happiness!

saajan_12

Pancake1302 wrote: »

Thanks all for your replies!

The alleged breach is not reporting damage in the house (not caused by us). The damage didn't worsen over time. They are attempting to deduct the whole cost of the repairs for the damage on the basis that they couldn't submit an insurance claim due to the time passed since the damage occurred. They have however refused to provide us with their excess information and we've now found out that they never intended to submit a claim due to a high excess but they are still attempting to deduct the whole sum from the deposit.

Is this something that they're likely to be able to claim a deduction for?

If only it had been an illicit pet - that would have at least brought me some happiness!

Why so cryptic.. what's the damage you didn't report?

So X damage occurred which you could have noticed but failed to report? If yes, then a breach of your obligations.

If you had reported in a timely manner, LL's cost would have been £(excess). As you didn't report, it wasn't covered by insurance/warranty, so LL's cost is £(full cost).

So your breach HAS has resulted in a loss for the LL = £full cost - £excess. That's what you're liable for, from the deposit. What they intended to claim is not your business, they don't actually have to do the repair. The cost-excess is still their mitigated loss and that's what you have to repay.

hammy1988

Pancake1302 wrote: »

Thanks all for your replies!

The alleged breach is not reporting damage in the house (not caused by us). The damage didn't worsen over time. They are attempting to deduct the whole cost of the repairs for the damage on the basis that they couldn't submit an insurance claim due to the time passed since the damage occurred. They have however refused to provide us with their excess information and we've now found out that they never intended to submit a claim due to a high excess but they are still attempting to deduct the whole sum from the deposit.

Is this something that they're likely to be able to claim a deduction for?

If only it had been an illicit pet - that would have at least brought me some happiness!

Reminds me of when I rented, tiny fray on the stairs from feet going up it, I argued it was wear and tear, she argued that they'd need to replace the carpet on the stairs for the next tenants. It went on for ages no one budging and I gave in to save hassle and was £250 short on our deposit. Go forward two months, I call at the old house to check for letters and boom, the SAME carpet still on the stairs with the new tenants. I was fuming!

Pancake1302

saajan_12 wrote: »

Why so cryptic.. what's the damage you didn't report?

So X damage occurred which you could have noticed but failed to report? If yes, then a breach of your obligations.

If you had reported in a timely manner, LL's cost would have been £(excess). As you didn't report, it wasn't covered by insurance/warranty, so LL's cost is £(full cost).

So your breach HAS has resulted in a loss for the LL = £full cost - £excess. That's what you're liable for, from the deposit. What they intended to claim is not your business, they don't actually have to do the repair. The cost-excess is still their mitigated loss and that's what you have to repay.

Thanks for your response. This is our issue though - the landlord isn't willing to provide us with confirmation of what their excess is. We can't see how they can claim for anything without this information? We've also found out that they wouldn't have claimed on the insurance because the excess was so high, which suggests the excess is higher than the full cost (and would presumably explain why they are unwilling to confirm the excess).

If this is the case (excess is higher than the full cost of the repair), using your reasoning, we wouldn't have caused any loss?

00ec25

buggy_boy wrote: »

Who told you that? Its totally wrong, you will find in pretty much every tenancy agreement that the tenant remains liable for all utility and council tax bills until the end of the tenancy.

and you need to understand there is a difference between statute law and contract law

contracts are overridden by statute, and statute law defines the different liability applicable to SPT and has now been "clarified" in case law

google "Bradley v Leeds"
read and learn...

Pancake1302

hammy1988 wrote: »

Reminds me of when I rented, tiny fray on the stairs from feet going up it, I argued it was wear and tear, she argued that they'd need to replace the carpet on the stairs for the next tenants. It went on for ages no one budging and I gave in to save hassle and was £250 short on our deposit. Go forward two months, I call at the old house to check for letters and boom, the SAME carpet still on the stairs with the new tenants. I was fuming!

I can understand why! It's disheartening I have a few friends who have agreed to deductions that they thought were excessive or just wrong because they just needed the rest of the money or didn't want the hassle of challenging it.