Can the LL do this?

Debt_Free_Chick

Thanks sooz - you've got what I meant

Thesaint

Before the deposit protection scheme, bad or inexperienced LLs felt safer with deposits as they could withhold them at the end of the tenancy for all sorts of spurious reasons e.g. dust on the skirting boards, rubbish in the wheelie bin, leaves on the drive etc :rotfl:

So they would go for maximum deposits and some, I guess, would aim to make it difficult for the tenants to get their deposits back.

Now - the LL can't hold the deposit. It must go into a protection scheme. At the end of the tenancy, the presumption is that repayment of the deposit is automatic. The only way an LL can prevent a repayment is if they raise a formal dispute with via an independent adjudicator.

The law now means that far more deposits will be returned automatically, with LL's needing very good reasons to claim anything back.

So why make the tenant pay more into a protected scheme, the rules of which almost certainly mean that the tenant is going to get it back, automatically, at the end of the tenancy The LL actually isn't getting any more protection - he's just making the tenant tie up more money in a scheme which acts in the tenants favour, anyway.

sooz

Also, by the sound of the LL, he doesn't have many properties

because

1) he's using an agency
2) the agency don't know him very well
3) he doesn't know the agency very well either

so it's unlikely that he is planning to spend the required set up fees to register with the insurance deposit scheme, as for one or two properties it's not really worth the start up costs.

so the deposit will either be held with the free DPS or held by the LA and they have the agency insurance scheme. either way the LL will not actually get his hands on the money. So there is no point in him demanding £500 extra, as it's not as if he can use the money for his holiday, or to meet a mortgage payment etc.

teabelly

It sounds like the LL is a bit of a pillock. If you can then be continually late with the rent (but never too late) and make his life a misery. Stay within the law but torment the swine. If you are on a 6 month ast then you could easily continually report issues with the property, however minor, which will annoy the LA and the landlord. Plan to leave at the end of the AST though!

Alternatively tell them to stick it, demand the return of the rent as the deal wasn't what was agreed. If it isn't forthcoming take the appropriate party to the small claims court. If you find a similar property but with a higher rent you might be able to sue for loss of bargain too. It is definitely worth getting proper legal advice over this as it sounds very suspect. Trading standards or CAB may be able to help. To further stir things up try and find out if the LL is properly registered with the taxman.

Question to find the anwer to is who is your contract with. The LA or the LL? If the former then you ought to only pay £995 as that is what you have been told. If the LL wants another £500 then the LA should pay it to the LL, not you as they made the mistake. The fact the LA got it wrong shouldn't be your problem if your contract is with them.

I'd go see the CAB or trading standards as soon as you can. If you can't see them before you need to pay the deposit and you really want the house then try and pay the extra deposit with a credit card so you can get it back later. Plead poverty and say that is the only way of getting the cash right now and the LA will probably accept it.

thesaint

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Thanks sooz - you've got what I meant

Thesaint

Before the deposit protection scheme, bad or inexperienced LLs felt safer with deposits as they could withhold them at the end of the tenancy for all sorts of spurious reasons e.g. dust on the skirting boards, rubbish in the wheelie bin, leaves on the drive etc :rotfl:

So they would go for maximum deposits and some, I guess, would aim to make it difficult for the tenants to get their deposits back.

Now - the LL can't hold the deposit. It must go into a protection scheme. At the end of the tenancy, the presumption is that repayment of the deposit is automatic. The only way an LL can prevent a repayment is if they raise a formal dispute with via an independent adjudicator.

The law now means that far more deposits will be returned automatically, with LL's needing very good reasons to claim anything back.

So why make the tenant pay more into a protected scheme, the rules of which almost certainly mean that the tenant is going to get it back, automatically, at the end of the tenancy The LL actually isn't getting any more protection - he's just making the tenant tie up more money in a scheme which acts in the tenants favour, anyway.

The point I make is that the OP has not paid anything, so they can take their money and run. Or pay what is asked and live with it.

The why's and wherefore's of the landlord and/or agent is irrelevant.

The amount of deposit is relevant, we do not know how much damage could be done, so the landlord is trying to protect himself, if the deposit is too small he would have to initiate a claim via the court to retrieve the balance.

It's easier for him to have the money in the 1st place and let the tenant sue if they are not happy with the deductions.

For all we know the landlord could be receiving interest on the deposit, which is a further incentive to have a bigger deposit.

thesaint

teabelly wrote: »

It sounds like the LL is a bit of a pillock. If you can then be continually late with the rent (but never too late) and make his life a misery. Stay within the law but torment the swine. If you are on a 6 month ast then you could easily continually report issues with the property, however minor, which will annoy the LA and the landlord. Plan to leave at the end of the AST though!

Could you let the OP know what continually late but never too late is?

It would help her and her two small children to decide how far to wind her landlord up without being dragged to court and landed with further costs.

Debt_Free_Chick

thesaint wrote: »

The point I make is that the OP has not paid anything, so they can take their money and run.

The OP has paid the first month's rent (£995) - although, I agree, there is no contract (or wasn't at the time of posting)

sooz

No AST yet as I understand it, but she may have signed an agreement to use the agency, and they are probably trying to keep most of that as their fees.

thesaint

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

The OP has paid the first month's rent (£995) - although, I agree, there is no contract (or wasn't at the time of posting)

Is this not what I said originally?

sooz wrote: »

No AST yet as I understand it, but she may have signed an agreement to use the agency, and they are probably trying to keep most of that as their fees.

I don't know whether they are or not, no one has said.
If they are trying to keep it, all the more reason to get out of the non-contract.

sooz

clare1076 wrote: »

The letting agents said if we pull out we lose 75% of the rent already paid, but i think we shouldn't because all along it has been stipulated that the deposit was £995.

I was only quoting what the OP said

carpetbelly

surely they should either honour the contract where they stated the smaller deposit or if they insist on the extra money you shouldnt loose money out of the rent you've already paid as they're now trying to change the t&c's.

I'd be ringing up the CAB/Shelter for some advice asap