Deposit return without a signed inventory

Daytoapage

Hi all.

A change in circumstances means we are looking to buy shortly after renting for many years. We have rented our current home for over ten years, in which time there was a major ingress of water meaning the property was inhospitable for months. We were given an inventory when we initially moved in which we did not sign and return, however we were in agreement with it. I understand a lack of dual signed inventory should mean the return of any and all deposit. Is this the case if a inventory was issued but the tenants didn't return it? Does the fact that considerable repairs were carried out as a result of the water damage meaning the inventory is no longer a true reflection of the condition of the property? 

anselld

It is not mandatory for inventory to be dual signed although it helps credibility if it is. 

Repairs are not particularly relevant either, you are still obliged to return the property in the same condition less wear and tear, unless you are using the water ingress as a defence against specific damage.

As ever, if you cannot reach agreement with the L then refer the case to the relevant deposit protection arbritration.

theartfullodger

Did you mean uninhabitable rather than property is inhospitable (meaning not being nice to you)?

Daytoapage

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

saajan_12

Daytoapage said:

Hi all.

A change in circumstances means we are looking to buy shortly after renting for many years. We have rented our current home for over ten years, in which time there was a major ingress of water meaning the property was inhospitable for months. We were given an inventory when we initially moved in which we did not sign and return, however we were in agreement with it. I understand a lack of dual signed inventory should mean the return of any and all deposit. Is this the case if a inventory was issued but the tenants didn't return it? Does the fact that considerable repairs were carried out as a result of the water damage meaning the inventory is no longer a true reflection of the condition of the property? 

Ha, no! Especially not as you describe, where it sounds like the LL / LA did their job in preparing an accurate inventory (given you were in agreement) but still the tenant can unilaterally not sign and hence guarantee the return of the deposit. That would be a stupid loophole! 

An inventory being signed is great proof of the starting condition of the property, but its certainly not legally required. An inventory which was sent to the tenants and no disagreements raised is great proof for the LL already. They might even have proved the starting condition via receipts / dated pictures / etc. 

You're responsible for returning the property in the same condition less fair wear and tear, plus paying any rent or other amounts due. If there's a particular damage claim, then the question will be what was the condition of that before - either through the relevant part of the inventory, or proof from the water damage / repair that it was new. 

anselld

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

Daytoapage

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

But how would that discussion go? "The lino was new when you moved in and is now slightly worn tongue and Grove therefore the deductions will be X amount of pounds"

anselld

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

But how would that discussion go? "The lino was new when you moved in and is now slightly worn tongue and Grove therefore the deductions will be X amount of pounds"

The laminate was presumably replaced on a known date and at a know cost for which the L will presumably have some evidence beyond the inventory.  Then will be the question of how bad it is "slightly worn".  If that is consistent with age and normal use then wear-and-tear, no deduction.   If used as a dartboard then a fraction of replacement cost based on the notional life of the item remaining, eg basic laminate should last 3-5 years.

It is not an exact science, hence need for negotiation.  However you might be imagining problems that aren't going to happen.  You need to wait and see what is being claimed (if anything).

Daytoapage

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

But how would that discussion go? "The lino was new when you moved in and is now slightly worn tongue and Grove therefore the deductions will be X amount of pounds"

The laminate was presumably replaced on a known date and at a know cost for which the L will presumably have some evidence beyond the inventory.  Then will be the question of how bad it is "slightly worn".  If that is consistent with age and normal use then wear-and-tear, no deduction.   If used as a dartboard then a fraction of replacement cost based on the notional life of the item remaining, eg basic laminate should last 3-5 years.

It is not an exact science, hence need for negotiation.  However you might be imagining problems that aren't going to happen.  You need to wait and see what is being claimed (if anything).

Yes, there certainly isn't any issues as of yet. And the condition of pretty much everything will be fair considering the length of time we have been there. The LL has always been fine and somewhat naively continued to employ the agent which is where the anticipation lies. They (the agent) will struggle to make a case without any evidence of the condition and even more so without our agreement however I'd rather avoid having that discussion in the first place and expedite the return of funds.

35har1old

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

But how would that discussion go? "The lino was new when you moved in and is now slightly worn tongue and Grove therefore the deductions will be X amount of pounds"

The laminate was presumably replaced on a known date and at a know cost for which the L will presumably have some evidence beyond the inventory.  Then will be the question of how bad it is "slightly worn".  If that is consistent with age and normal use then wear-and-tear, no deduction.   If used as a dartboard then a fraction of replacement cost based on the notional life of the item remaining, eg basic laminate should last 3-5 years.

It is not an exact science, hence need for negotiation.  However you might be imagining problems that aren't going to happen.  You need to wait and see what is being claimed (if anything).

Yes, there certainly isn't any issues as of yet. And the condition of pretty much everything will be fair considering the length of time we have been there. The LL has always been fine and somewhat naively continued to employ the agent which is where the anticipation lies. They (the agent) will struggle to make a case without any evidence of the condition and even more so without our agreement however I'd rather avoid having that discussion in the first place and expedite the return of funds.

So the agent didn’t do yearly inspections?

Daytoapage

35har1old said:

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

anselld said:

Daytoapage said:

There isn't damage as such, barring wear and tear. I was more looking to streamline the process of getting the deposit returned as the agent is less than reputable despite the LL being more than fair historically. Our main objection would be that there is now wear and tear as expected on the areas repaired, and the inventory bears now no resemblance to due to the repairs and subsequent wear. This would mean any discussions over the inventory would be some what moot (in my opinion) but I'm looking for a concise answer on this.

There isn't a shortcut.  You still need to have a reasonable discussion taking into account the factors you mention and taking into consideration what the Landlord decides to claim, if anything.  As said, it is a negotiation and if that fails DPS arbritration.

But how would that discussion go? "The lino was new when you moved in and is now slightly worn tongue and Grove therefore the deductions will be X amount of pounds"

The laminate was presumably replaced on a known date and at a know cost for which the L will presumably have some evidence beyond the inventory.  Then will be the question of how bad it is "slightly worn".  If that is consistent with age and normal use then wear-and-tear, no deduction.   If used as a dartboard then a fraction of replacement cost based on the notional life of the item remaining, eg basic laminate should last 3-5 years.

It is not an exact science, hence need for negotiation.  However you might be imagining problems that aren't going to happen.  You need to wait and see what is being claimed (if anything).

Yes, there certainly isn't any issues as of yet. And the condition of pretty much everything will be fair considering the length of time we have been there. The LL has always been fine and somewhat naively continued to employ the agent which is where the anticipation lies. They (the agent) will struggle to make a case without any evidence of the condition and even more so without our agreement however I'd rather avoid having that discussion in the first place and expedite the return of funds.

So the agent didn’t do yearly inspections?

Not consistently, no. And they didn't take photos etc initially either.