Dispute with landlord

unlocated

Hello,

I have recently moved out of a shorthold tenancy.
The landlord has let the agency take charge of the inventory and checkout.
They've carried out the inspection and released the deposit in full - minus their fees.

I had some rent which the landlord had to refund me (as I paid in advance the full month and then, as agreed in writing, we found someone to move in before the end of the month).

I have been trying to get this money back for a while. The Landlord has now been trying to charge me for the cleaning of the carpets, and wants to use part of this refund I'm owed.

In leaving the property I have based my decision on the terms in the inventory and contract:
From the Inventory/checkout document
All carpets should be thoroughly shampooed. Depending on the agreement and/or length of tenancy they should be professionally cleaned. You will be charged to clean any stains or soiling.

The Tenancy agreement:
4.6.3. Pay for the washing (including ironing or pressing) of all the linen and the cleaning (including ironing and pressing where appropriate) of all blankets, bedding, carpets and curtains which have been soiled during the tenancy (Reasonable use thereof nevertheless excepted).

This, to me means that there is need to shampoo the carpets if they're dirty. In my case, as the agency has not highlighted any issues and released the deposit, there were no issues whatsoever with the apartment.
In my communications with the landlord I did also mention I would have appreciated an earlier check so that I could address any issues they were to find before my departure (and also to avoid entering disputes with the deposit).

I think the landlord is trying to get the money in any way, and should have used the deposit.

In addition, if it changes anything, the property at the beginning was in very poor conditions and had not been properly cleaned. Part of it, was a very bad smell of dog wee on the kitchen carpet and dirt/hair around the house. the agency didi the cleaning of the carpets once - which was unsatisfactory as I vacuum cleaned 2 bags of hair from the carpets (evidenced in photos) and the smell was still there.
The Landlord has then done another proper carpet cleaning.

At this stage I have sent a letter asking for my full refund to be given back and they've said they'll retain £126 for the cleaning of the carpets.

Would the Small claims court be the most appropriate course of action at this stage?

Thanks,
unlocated.

sparkey1

Your landlord cant withhold money from you for deposit related items as your deposit has been returned. Full stop.

Did new tenants move in before your last day of your tenancy? If so you cannot be charged rent for that period. The reason why is because your landlord had given a tenancy to someone else.

When you go to court, and you should, you will need the deposit paperwork so make sure you keep it.

I am a landlord. Your landlord is a rogue landlord. Do the accept his deposit deductions as legal in any way.

If by any chance the other tenants moved in later, beyond the expiry, he is entitled to the full rent from you, but that still doesn't allow him to deduct for a deposit.

unlocated

Hi,
thanks for your reply.

I moved out 10 days before the end of tenancy and someone moved in the day after.

I have all the emails and the confirmation for the deposit from the Deposit Protection Service.

Exactly, I thought the deposit is for those expenses. They're acting, somehow, maliciously. Am I right to think they should seek damage from the agency (if any), not from me, as they have released the deposit?


sorry, not clear about your last sentence? "Do the accept his deposit deductions as legal in any way"

thank you very much again

Comms69

sparkey1 wrote: »

Your landlord cant withhold money from you for deposit related items as your deposit has been returned. Full stop.

Did new tenants move in before your last day of your tenancy? If so you cannot be charged rent for that period. The reason why is because your landlord had given a tenancy to someone else.

When you go to court, and you should, you will need the deposit paperwork so make sure you keep it.

I am a landlord. Your landlord is a rogue landlord. Do the accept his deposit deductions as legal in any way.

If by any chance the other tenants moved in later, beyond the expiry, he is entitled to the full rent from you, but that still doesn't allow him to deduct for a deposit.

Sorry you’re mistaken a landlord can claim for 6 years, with or without a deposit.

unlocated

Thank you for your response. Would you know what piece of legislation comes into play for the six years? Is there any reference?
I'd really appreciate as I don't want to go to court, waste time, and have to pay Extra for something avoidable thanks

steampowered

Yes, the next logical step would be small claims track.

Regardless of the situation with regards to the deposit, if you breached your tenancy agreement, that is a breach of contract. Under the Limitation Act 1980 one has 6 years to claim for a breach of contract.

The burden of proof would be on the landlord to prove that you had breached the tenancy agreement and what loss he had suffered as a result.

The fact that the letting agent had not identified any issues and that the deposit had been released in full would be good evidence to present to a judge to indicate that you were not in breach of your tenancy agreement, though is not conclusive if the landlord has evidence to the contrary.

Comms69

unlocated wrote: »

Thank you for your response. Would you know what piece of legislation comes into play for the six years? Is there any reference?
I'd really appreciate as I don't want to go to court, waste time, and have to pay Extra for something avoidable thanks

Any debt can be chased for upto 6 years.

Obviously in this case it’s you chasing the debt; but I’m theory the LL can come back in 5 years to chase the carpets.

You should not try to avoid court; it’s likely the only way you’d see your money again

G_M

sparkey1 wrote: »

Your landlord cant withhold money from you for deposit related items as your deposit has been returned. Full stop.

.

Yes he can. Full stop.

I would agree that the full return of the deposit might be seen by a judge as an indication that there were no justifiable issues on which to make a claim, but there may be other evidence, or simply something overlooked initially (eg a carpet stain that was initially hidden under furniture/overlooked).

As others have said, the landlord has 6 years to make a claim, just as you have 6 years to claim the over-payment of rent you believe you are entitled to.

So if you make a claim for the rent, the LL could counter-claim for the damaged carpet.

Each claim would be assessed separately by the judge on its merits.

unlocated

Thank you all for your insights and indications - I had a look at the 1980 Act.

In terms of breach of contract, that would be if the carpet was dirty or soiled at the end of the tenancy.

Their reason for asking was:
- the contract states so (which is imprecise as the contract indicates only where soiled or dirty);
- the new tenant has made a complaint about the cleanliness.

As in the contract there is no indication the carpets "must have" been shampooed, how is one supposed to make a decision about whether to wash the carpets or not?
Also, isn't it rather unfair that I've not been contacted with an indication or proof about the state of the carpets and given an opportunity to rectify - rather them directly saying they'd withhold a certain amount from the money they owe me, possibly because they'll get it professionally cleaned?

Thanks,
unlocated

Comms69

unlocated wrote: »

Thank you all for your insights and indications - I had a look at the 1980 Act.

In terms of breach of contract, that would be if the carpet was dirty or soiled at the end of the tenancy.

Their reason for asking was:
- the contract states so (which is imprecise as the contract indicates only where soiled or dirty);
- the new tenant has made a complaint about the cleanliness.

As in the contract there is no indication the carpets "must have" been shampooed, how is one supposed to make a decision about whether to wash the carpets or not?
Also, isn't it rather unfair that I've not been contacted with an indication or proof about the state of the carpets and given an opportunity to rectify - rather them directly saying they'd withhold a certain amount from the money they owe me, possibly because they'll get it professionally cleaned?

Thanks,
unlocated

What you have to remember is it's not me, or anyone else here, or the landlord you need to convince.


You need to convince a judge the LL owes you overpaid rent - which at first glance seems very straightforward.


The LL would then need to do the same in terms of carpet damage.


The LL is under no obligation to have the work done, it's to compensate for a loss.


Any evidence would be submitted by the LL to the court in advance of a hearing.

Airkraft

unlocated wrote: »

Hello,

I have recently moved out of a shorthold tenancy.
The landlord has let the agency take charge of the inventory and checkout.
They've carried out the inspection and released the deposit in full - minus their fees.

I had some rent which the landlord had to refund me (as I paid in advance the full month and then, as agreed in writing, we found someone to move in before the end of the month).

I have been trying to get this money back for a while. The Landlord has now been trying to charge me for the cleaning of the carpets, and wants to use part of this refund I'm owed.

In leaving the property I have based my decision on the terms in the inventory and contract:
From the Inventory/checkout document
All carpets should be thoroughly shampooed. Depending on the agreement and/or length of tenancy they should be professionally cleaned. You will be charged to clean any stains or soiling.

The Tenancy agreement:
4.6.3. Pay for the washing (including ironing or pressing) of all the linen and the cleaning (including ironing and pressing where appropriate) of all blankets, bedding, carpets and curtains which have been soiled during the tenancy (Reasonable use thereof nevertheless excepted).

This, to me means that there is need to shampoo the carpets if they're dirty. In my case, as the agency has not highlighted any issues and released the deposit, there were no issues whatsoever with the apartment.
In my communications with the landlord I did also mention I would have appreciated an earlier check so that I could address any issues they were to find before my departure (and also to avoid entering disputes with the deposit).

I think the landlord is trying to get the money in any way, and should have used the deposit.

In addition, if it changes anything, the property at the beginning was in very poor conditions and had not been properly cleaned. Part of it, was a very bad smell of dog wee on the kitchen carpet and dirt/hair around the house. the agency didi the cleaning of the carpets once - which was unsatisfactory as I vacuum cleaned 2 bags of hair from the carpets (evidenced in photos) and the smell was still there.
The Landlord has then done another proper carpet cleaning.

At this stage I have sent a letter asking for my full refund to be given back and they've said they'll retain £126 for the cleaning of the carpets.

Would the Small claims court be the most appropriate course of action at this stage?

Thanks,
unlocated.

The small claims court is the last place to take a dispute over a tenancy deposit scheme ... literally (well probably)

Years ago, the courts were getting swamped with claims by disgruntled tenants, and possibly aggravated by some rogue landlords, about the non-return of their security deposit, whether in whole or in part.

So the tenancy deposit protection scheme was introduced (or whatever it is called)
So assuming the lanlord was not acting unlawfully, and has protected your deposit under one of the approved schemes, it is they you should raise any dispute with.

Only if you disagree with their resolution, and whish to legally challenge it, should you consider court action as a matter of last resort.
But I suggest you ensure you have a good case before spending more of your hard earned cash following such a direction.

You say:

In leaving the property I have based my decision on the terms in the inventory and contract:
From the Inventory/checkout document
All carpets should be thoroughly shampooed. Depending on the agreement and/or length of tenancy they should be professionally cleaned. You will be charged to clean any stains or soiling.

You also quote the terms of the tenancy contract you aoriginally agreed to abide by:

The Tenancy agreement:
4.6.3. Pay for... the cleaning of ...all ..., carpets ... which have been soiled during the tenancy (Reasonable use thereof nevertheless excepted).

As I understand it, it appears £126 has been retained for the cleaning of the carpets.

Are you suggesting you have not soiled the carpets even by just walking on them during the tenancy?
Or are you suggesting the landlord is going to spend £126 cleaniung carpets thjat are already clean? e.g. did you clean them youreslf before leaving? If so, why did you accept the terms of the outgoing statement of condition?

Note that the amount of £126 retained must equate to the amount it will cost the landlord to clean the carpets, and you may request proof after the event if required. (or other suitable evidence of the loss incurred)

As I said, I'm sure nor what exactly the basis if your dispute is, but make sure it is good if you plan to take legal action; a court is unlikley to not uphold the decision of the deposit protection scheme (and their dispute resolution process) unless it is.Perhaps run your argument past your own independent legal adviser first.