New Let Garage not included

[Deleted User]

For me, the main problem with such deposit insurance schemes is they can do what they like, there's no impartial assessment of damages, no regulation of fairness.  The LL can claim what they like, then debt collectors come after the tenant for the money.  The tenant initially thinks they are onto a good thing because not paying a deposit up front, not realising that they can end up in a nightmare at the end.  If your daughter moves in (and it seems like she will have to unless the LL agrees to release her from the contract) she really will have to take detailed pictures and videos of the state of the property on moving in, in case she has to go to court to protest against unjustified damage claims.

AdrianC

Grumpy_chap said:

SpiderLegs said:

Are you under the impression that a landlord cannot pursue a tenant through the legal system if for example they have caused damaged over and above the value of the deposit?

In practical terms it is very difficult.
Deposit protection schemes are quite weighted in favour of the tenant. Once they have made a determination, any further routes to claim are rather suppressed.
The latest changes in letting rules really rather assume there are bad landlords and no such thing as a bad tenant.

That's not what's been talked about, though.

What's being talked about is amounts above the deposit, not amounts that the deposit scheme has denied validity.

Now, there's definitely issues with getting people to pay up after a small claim judgement, but that's the same for a deposit-replacement scheme as for an amount on top of a trad deposit.

Grumpy_chap

AdrianC said:

What's being talked about is amounts above the deposit, not amounts that the deposit scheme has denied validity.

They amount to much the same thing.  Take a property let at £1k / month so the deposit is £1k.

Scenario 1

• Tenant moves out and accepts some damage, offers to agree a deduction of £150 from the deposit and requests the balance returned.
• Landlord estimates £1,200 to rectify
• Deposit company say £800.  Pragmatism applies and both parties accept that figure.  The deposit company require the parties to agree that as "full and final settlement" before releasing funds as agreed

Scenario 2

• Tenant wrecks the place, LL assesses £10k to rectify
• Tenant says "you've always been a bad LL, give me back my full deposit"
• Deposit company accept there is damage beyond wear & tear and beyond the total of the deposit held, offer to release to LL so long as LL accepts as "full and final settlement"
• In reality, if the LL does not agree, then the LL gets nothing.  Also the deposit company set a time limit for the LL to accept or refund in full to the tenant and LL to pursue alternative routes.

The practical effect is to limit the tenant's liability to the amount of the deposit held.

As a tenant, I would far rather deal with a deposit company and LL direct than an insurance company who will pursue a claim with far more vigour and much less pragmatism.

SpiderLegs

Grumpy_chap said:

AdrianC said:

What's being talked about is amounts above the deposit, not amounts that the deposit scheme has denied validity.

They amount to much the same thing.  Take a property let at £1k / month so the deposit is £1k.

Scenario 1

• Tenant moves out and accepts some damage, offers to agree a deduction of £150 from the deposit and requests the balance returned.
• Landlord estimates £1,200 to rectify
• Deposit company say £800.  Pragmatism applies and both parties accept that figure.  The deposit company require the parties to agree that as "full and final settlement" before releasing funds as agreed

Scenario 2

• Tenant wrecks the place, LL assesses £10k to rectify
• Tenant says "you've always been a bad LL, give me back my full deposit"
• Deposit company accept there is damage beyond wear & tear and beyond the total of the deposit held, offer to release to LL so long as LL accepts as "full and final settlement"
• In reality, if the LL does not agree, then the LL gets nothing.  Also the deposit company set a time limit for the LL to accept or refund in full to the tenant and LL to pursue alternative routes.

The practical effect is to limit the tenant's liability to the amount of the deposit held.

As a tenant, I would far rather deal with a deposit company and LL direct than an insurance company who will pursue a claim with far more vigour and much less pragmatism.

Your assertion that the deposit scheme will require any monies to be released subject to the landlord aggreeing full and final settlement is completely incorrect.
For example -

https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/ask-tds-how-does-deposit-protection-work-if-i-am-claiming-more-than-the-tenants-deposit/

When making a claim against the tenant’s deposit, if the amount you are claiming is more than the deposit, you have two options.

• Use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) from the deposit scheme you protected the deposit with
• Take the tenant to court and inform the deposit scheme of your intentions

Whether you use Insured or Custodial deposit protection, when a dispute is raised over the deposit TDS (or the scheme you used to protect the deposit) must hold the funds. The same is true if you decide not to use ADR but instead seek to go to court.

If your claim exceeds the deposit amount, and TDS is adjudicating over the dispute, you should submit evidence for all elements of the claim. The adjudicator will work through each element of the claim in turn until either the entire deposit has been awarded to the landlord or the adjudicator has looked at whole case.

If the tenant’s deposit is £1000 and they owe £1000 in rent and £500 in damages, for example, the adjudicator may decide that the rent claim was fair and award that portion of the claim to the landlord. TDS is unable to instruct the tenant to pay anything in excess of the deposit so will not go on to look at the claim for damages. Rather, the landlord would need to seek redress elsewhere, such as in court.