landlord deposit problem

Rón beag

Hi everyone,

Just need a bit of legal advice. First of all, this occurred in England but as I'm only looking for a jist of an idea as opposed to proper hard facts, I think this will be ok but mods please lock if you don't think it's appropiate.

During 2009/2010 a house was being leased out by 3 tenants.

In April 2010, a new tenant moved in with the permission of the landlady although he did not sign a lease.

In August 2010, the original 3 tenants moved out and were replaced by 3 more tenants.

The deposits of the original 3 had been kept in a company which went bankrupt and so neither tenants nor landlady got the benefit of the deposit. The 3 tenants' relationship with the landlady was very poor by the time of them leaving and so they did not make any attempt to clean/tidy/rectify any damage to the house.

The 4th tenant (who had moved in April 2010) acted as mediator between new tenants and landlady regards lease signing etc. The landlady did not ever inspect the house after the previous tenants leaving.

The 3 new tenants moved in and being fairly reasonable just went about cleaning the house and making it into a home. Unfortunately, they did not take any photographs of the house.

In August 2011, all 4 tenants decided to move out. However, the landlady is withholding all of their deposits as she is claiming the house needs powerhosing, repair for some damage and then some other random things.

While the 4 tenants admit the house needs a really good cleaning, this was needed when the tenants moved in (April and August 2010) and so feel they should not be responsible for this. The present tenants also can get the previous tenants to act as witnesses to confirm the state of the house when they moved out.

So after all that, my question is; do we have a case to get back the deposit or will the fact that we have no proof (although neither does the landlady) as to state of house when we moved in go against us?

Apologies for the long post!

coylemj

Rón beag wrote: »

The 3 new tenants moved in and being fairly reasonable just went about cleaning the house and making it into a home. Unfortunately, they did not take any photographs of the house.

But are we to assume (because you didn't explicitly say so) that the second three paid a deposit?

Why would anyone pay a deposit to rent a house that needs cleaning the minute you set foot in the door?

You pay rent typically a month or more in advance, the deposit is a guarantee to the landlord against damage and excessive wear and tear. If the house is in sh1t when you arrive I wouldn't pay any deposit, in fact I'd ask for a couple of weeks rent free for cleaning up the place.

blueythebear

Rón beag wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Just need a bit of legal advice. First of all, this occurred in England but as I'm only looking for a jist of an idea as opposed to proper hard facts, I think this will be ok but mods please lock if you don't think it's appropiate.

During 2009/2010 a house was being leased out by 3 tenants.

In April 2010, a new tenant moved in with the permission of the landlady although he did not sign a lease.

In August 2010, the original 3 tenants moved out and were replaced by 3 more tenants.

The deposits of the original 3 had been kept in a company which went bankrupt and so neither tenants nor landlady got the benefit of the deposit. The 3 tenants' relationship with the landlady was very poor by the time of them leaving and so they did not make any attempt to clean/tidy/rectify any damage to the house.

The 4th tenant (who had moved in April 2010) acted as mediator between new tenants and landlady regards lease signing etc. The landlady did not ever inspect the house after the previous tenants leaving.

The 3 new tenants moved in and being fairly reasonable just went about cleaning the house and making it into a home. Unfortunately, they did not take any photographs of the house.

In August 2011, all 4 tenants decided to move out. However, the landlady is withholding all of their deposits as she is claiming the house needs powerhosing, repair for some damage and then some other random things.

While the 4 tenants admit the house needs a really good cleaning, this was needed when the tenants moved in (April and August 2010) and so feel they should not be responsible for this. The present tenants also can get the previous tenants to act as witnesses to confirm the state of the house when they moved out.

So after all that, my question is; do we have a case to get back the deposit or will the fact that we have no proof (although neither does the landlady) as to state of house when we moved in go against us?

Apologies for the long post!

I'm not aware of whether there is an equivalent to the PRTB in the UK. I imagine there would be but I think the real question is, do you feel that the amount she is withholding is worth the hassle of taking legal proceedings? If so, then consult a UK solicitor or the UK equivalent of the PRTB.

That said, a letter from a solicitor in the UK may be all that is required to frighten her into returning the deposit.

Rón beag

coylemj wrote: »

But are we to assume (because you didn't explicitly say so) that the second three paid a deposit?

Why would anyone pay a deposit to rent a house that needs cleaning the minute you set foot in the door?

You pay rent typically a month or more in advance, the deposit is a guarantee to the landlord against damage and excessive wear and tear. If the house is in sh1t when you arrive I wouldn't pay any deposit, in fact I'd ask for a couple of weeks rent free for cleaning up the place.

Yeah all three paid a deposit + the guy that moved in in April signed the lease and paid the deposit in August. To tell the truth we're all wondering this now but we're all fairly laid back and just got on with things. There was a bit of a crossover with tenants moving in and out so we got caught on the hop when they actually moved out, but we all work fairly hard/long hours so it was just to save hassle of having to find somewhere else.

blueythebear wrote: »

I'm not aware of whether there is an equivalent to the PRTB in the UK. I imagine there would be but I think the real question is, do you feel that the amount she is withholding is worth the hassle of taking legal proceedings? If so, then consult a UK solicitor or the UK equivalent of the PRTB.

That said, a letter from a solicitor in the UK may be all that is required to frighten her into returning the deposit.

Hopefully that might do the trick - it's nearly more the principle of the thing by this stage but we've all moved away to different cities so travelling for small claims hearings mightn't be worth it.

jim90

In my experience landlords will do everything in their power to withhold a security deposit. they seem to view it as a bonus.
In rare instances they will return it but again this is unusual. having rented about 9 properties over the years i can say that only one landlord returned the full deposit, some returned part of it and most returned none at all. all of the properties were returned in good condition, clean and with any damages repaired. in one instance where i was sharing with someone who left 4 months before the end of the lease i covered their rent along with my own and the landlord still screwed me for the deposit having no regard for the additional contribution to the rent.
One can say that there are mechanisms in place to rectify disputes such as threshold or the small claims court but it seems to me that most landlords realize that these avenues could take years to provide satisfaction to a disgruntled tenant and are willing to ignore such claims. a lot of people who are renting a home would be at a disadvantage financially when faced with a legal battle against a landlord.
Handing money over to someone is much easier than getting them to hand it back.

Rón beag

jim90 wrote: »

In my experience landlords will do everything in their power to withhold a security deposit. they seem to view it as a bonus.
In rare instances they will return it but again this is unusual. having rented about 9 properties over the years i can say that only one landlord returned the full deposit, some returned part of it and most returned none at all. all of the properties were returned in good condition, clean and with any damages repaired. in one instance where i was sharing with someone who left 4 months before the end of the lease i covered their rent along with my own and the landlord still screwed me for the deposit having no regard for the additional contribution to the rent.
One can say that there are mechanisms in place to rectify disputes such as threshold or the small claims court but it seems to me that most landlords realize that these avenues could take years to provide satisfaction to a disgruntled tenant and are willing to ignore such claims. a lot of people who are renting a home would be at a disadvantage financially when faced with a legal battle against a landlord.
Handing money over to someone is much easier than getting them to hand it back.

Unfortnately I think this is true Jim. We know she's either really tight or really short of money from incidences regarding needing a new boiler during the year (where it took 4 weeks to fix during during which she said we can shower using the kettle!). She now has started accusing us of doing something with the aerial - even though we had Sky when we moved in so God know's if there ever was an aerial). Its £1500 of which I've invested the largest portion of £415 - it galls me to think she can get away with it just because we'll have to take a day off work + travel and it's obvious now this is what she's counting on.

BostonB

http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/about-tds.html

I think I she would have to prove the house was in a better condition before you rented it. But why on earth did you move into it in the first place if it was that bad. Perhaps if you didn't rent bad places, you wouldn't meet so many bad landlords. Just a thought.

Rón beag

BostonB wrote: »

http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/about-tds.html

I think I she would have to prove the house was in a better condition before you rented it. But why on earth did you move into it in the first place if it was that bad. Perhaps if you didn't rent bad places, you wouldn't meet so many bad landlords. Just a thought.

Thanks for the link - I think that's exactly what we've been looking for. There was no set day when the previous tenants moved out and the other 3 moved in - it was slightly staggered so when they did move out leaving the place as it was, although it was noticed and given out about, we just got on with things as we were all fairly busy. Have definately learnt our lesson now though!