Tenancy disputes, court, deposits and myDeposits arbitration

raddougall

Hi all, 
I'm looking for some advice on the next steps with a tenancy deposit dispute. I don't think it's that straightforward but you may disagree. Heres the quick version. 
Last year we moved into the property with some agreements at the beginning of the tenancy that I would do some work on the property in return for some rent being taken off as long as the landlord paid for materials or contractors. This maintenance included painting, bulbs, sorting the wood burning fireplaces so they could be used. The latter of which is a safety aspect they should have done before we moved in but never-the-less. I did my bit and submitted invoices. Immediately there was some resistance and delay tactics. Eventually nothing was paid for and other maintenance was a problem to get the landlord to complete.

Fast forward to earlier this year when I finally took him to court over not reimbursing me as was agreed plus a bunch of other issues. We never made it to proper court as he settled with me in the pre-court mediation and had to pay me nearly £1000.

Fast forward again to us moving out of the property and he is now claiming a bunch of deductions which are bonkers and I have the evidence to refute all of them. The one of concern is that he is saying that I should have painted the whole house and I didn't. We never even had a discussion along those lines never-mind an agreement. For this, he wants to 'recoup' the money he gave me off rent at the beginning. 

Now I would say that this has been settled as part of the previous court claim and he can't come back and have another go.

My concern is that he is wording it differently saying 'you should have painted the whole house' where as my original court claim centred around him not paying for the paint (and other things). 

To make matters more complicated, I did actually complete all of the other items that were listed on the tenancy agreement (and I have proof) but the issue of painting... the tenancy agreement just says "the tenant will complete the painting". I did do some painting, but clearly not the whole house. 

I am trying to decide on using MyDeposits dispute arbitration or taking him right back to court again. 

From what I have read, arbitration are much more likely to 'split the difference' than a court. Additionally I have a concern that arbitration won't give enough weight to the original court claim as it was settled in mediation and not by a court judgement. I am not even sure if arbitration will fully consider evidence submitted relating to a previous court claim as their website suggests they cannot get involved when a court is involved.

I welcome any thoughts on if I should go to court or let arbitration from MyDeposits handle this. 

dimbo61

Keep all your evidence, emails, letters, text messages etc
The Landlord has to prove the condition of the property before you moved in and when you moved out.
Unless your qualified to install a wood burning stove/burner you should stay well away as leaking CO could kill.

raddougall

Thanks @dimbo61
I have evidence. Lots of it. The stove I got a professional company in to clean and certify and then sent the bill to the landlord. One of the bills that was not paid and was included in the court claim. 

I think the problem here centres around the clause in the tenancy that says ....

"IT IS agreed between the parties that the first months rent shall be reduced by two weeks worth of rent as theTenant will be completing the painting, maintance and have the chimney swept. The Tenant further agrees that he will provide the invoices to the Landlord for these works. "

Excuse the typo's, that is exactly how it is written in the AST.

greatcrested

the tenancy agreement just says "the tenant will complete the painting". I did do some painting, but clearly not the whole house.

I can see that being an issue since he claims the agreement was the whole house and you claim it was.... not sure what, but less.

Was anything other either said or written at the time regarding 'complete' the painting?

As for your choice, the courts tend to prefer LLs & tenants to use the scheme arbitration services, since that is wat they are tere for (and courts are overworked - irrespective of COVID-19!).

Having said that, presenting the entire history of the previous claim to the arbitrators might be more challenging, so I'm not really sure which is best!

raddougall

Thanks for your thoughts @greatcrested thats exactly where I am at the moment trying to decide.

There is also the aspect of court costing me money that I know is hard to claim back for small claims (application fee is £115 plus a hearing fee of something around £75 I think). Also given the LL's past actions I suspect that we will have to go all the way to hearing as he will just ignore it all and then deny all at the last minute.

But my claim for court fees back would be along the lines of the LL left me no option. 

An extra bit of information is that I have already made a without prejudice offer of £100 to the LL to settle without dispute which he summarily rejected.

On the painting front and what was agreed. It's pretty complicated. Short version is that the Agent verbally agreed we could have a week off if we moved earlier (I suspect to help her out as she subsequently left the company and denied all of this but that got us in before the end of the month that she left) and a week off for completing the items in the list. We also verbally agreed that materials and costs would be reimbursed by the LL but that was omitted from the AST. The only things written down are on the offer to rent form where it says 'wall in the hallway, lounge and master bedroom marked and need painting'. I don't believe that is part of the AST but in the end I painted some other walls then stopped when it became clear that the LL was not going to honour the agreement.

greatcrested

The only things written down are on the offer to rent form where it says 'wall in the hallway, lounge and master bedroom marked and need painting'.

Not sure what an offer to rent form is, however in view of the vagueness of the painting agreement in the AST, this might well support your contention that the agreement was not to paint the whole house.

raddougall

Indeed @greatcrested and that will be my argument... the agreement says I should do some painting and I did. 
The challenge is do I go to court or trust the arbitration of MyDeposits?

wesleyad

Deposit decisions tend to go to tenant if there's any doubt or any misleading clauses etc. For a LL to get money they have to have cast iron evidence (as it should be as they are the one making the accusation). I would definitely use them. Also if you chose not to and go to court, this already looks bad on you (annoys the judges who see it as something they shouldn't have to deal with)

raddougall

Thanks @wesleyad

That is what I read, because as you say, the landlord must prove and the default position is that it's our money not his. However I have read several posts from both LL and Tenants on many forums and most of them say that arbitration split the difference pretty much all of the time. No matter how strong the case appeared. Obviously I am reading forums where people who post about it can be biased because most of them were posted after the fact, but still it seems unlikely that they will fall 100% either way even with very strong evidence. 

I am aware of the perception going to court casts, however given the previous history with this LL, the previous court case, and the multiple attempts to settle that one and this one without going to court, I think we would be ok on that.

Obviously once we decide on a course of action that is then set so if arbitration doesn't go my way, I can't then go to court and I am just not certain that they will consider all the evidence. The main reason being that I know they can't consider certain things, the most pertinent ones being anything that is outside scope of the deposit and anything that is being handled by the court. Both of which could be argued apply to this situation... and equally could be argued that they dont.