Rented property - deposit problem

desperatedan123 wrote: »

My partner was at university in London. Living in a shared rented property.
When they all signed the tenancy , the landlord made it clear, there is NO DEPOSIT PAYABLE and there is NO DEPOSIT PROTECTION SCHEME.

She made them all pay 2 months rent upfront each and said at the end of the tenancy a full months rent will be returned to each of them.
(This seems like a deposit to me ... Not sure why she would choose to word it this way?)
Yes, that is clearly a deposit. Cash paid up front to be returned at the end. Clearly not rent!

12 months later, my partner has moved out and asked for her 350 months rent back.

The landlord is now saying she is only paying 320 as her room needed painting and some rubbish was moved. The landlord is also saying that she can only have the 320 back in CASH and she has to collect if from London ... (my partner now lives in birmingham)
So as well as trying to fiddle the deposit rules, she is also fiddling HMRC....?

Where does my partner stand? Anyone got any advice?
Yes.
Take the landlord to court and claim the 3 times penalty for not registering the deposit.
1) is there a receipt proving this extra months rent was paid?
2) is there anything in writing describing it as rent which is refundable?
3) what else is there in writing about this money eg recent email exchnges regarding its return, the deductions, etc, which make it clear a deposit was taken?

In my eyes, she is 350 pound in credit with her rent and it should be returned immediatley in the same way it was paid. Bank transfer.
Well in my mind, the tenant should not have paid the last months rent since (as your rightly say, if this money was rent then the tenant was in credt and the last month had already een paid.

Too late now though!

The landlord has obviously worded 'the deposit' differently in the tenancy agreement to avoid using a deposit scheme and to accrue interest on the deposit in her own bank account ...
The interest will be miinimal. I doubt that is the reason.

It's to avoid registering it in a scheme, and hence to avoid scheme arbitration over deductions. The courts would take a dim view and probably award the maximum penalty (3 times the deposit).