Deposit

freeflowing

Unusual Situation Guys, legally who is entitled to what?

Story -

Tenant A and Tenant B (Same sex and not partners) move into house, deposit is split 50/50 and both paid, rent receipt each month is in both names...

Tenant A moves out after 12/14 months (possibly due to conflict with Tenant , landlord notified 1/2 months later by Tenant B, no contact from/with Tenant A and is never heard from again.

Tenant B takes over full rent and gets receipts in their name only

Over 12 months later Tenant B decides to move out...

Question - Is Tenant B entitled to full deposit back OR 50% back (what was paid initially)? Does Tenant A have a say?

xpletiv

Was the deposit paid together in one sum, did they pay rent together in one sum? If so, I would think that even if its just 1 there, that they should get the full deposit back. Its Tenant B's fault for not pursuing it, if he hasnt already, from Tenant A if he chose to live there. If it were separate payments I would think that only one's deposit should be returned.

I did nearly the same as above with my old mate when living in town, though it was after more years and mutual.
I didnt inform landlord that I had paid Tenant B back his deposit myself, though LL did know that he had moved out and I was there by myself with everything in my name. So I was entitled to full amount of both deposits back from LL. Could be as simple as that?

The_Conductor

Both tenants are jointly and severally responsible for the property.
Tenant A moved out- and Tenant B took over the full payment of the rent etc.
No change has occured to the deposit (it hasn't been partially returned to Tenant A). X number of months down the road- Tenant B is vacating the property and seeking their portion of the deposit back.

The landlord inspects the property- makes any relevant deductions from the global deposit- and returns half to Tenant B. Tenant A- is entitled to their portion of the deposit back (less any reasonable deductions).

Landlord gives Tenant B their pro-rata deposit back- and makes a fair and reasonable effort to contact Tenant A to return their deposit- it is not Tenant B's deposit.

If Tenant B had vanished in the night- Tenant A- who had previously fecked off without a word to the landlord- would have been responsible for the rent- despite the fact that Tenant B had been paying it wholly in their own right.

Landlord gives pro-rata deposit back to Tenant B- less any reasonable deductions- and makes a reasonable effort to return Tenant A's portion of the deposit.

Neon_Lights

Funny one I'm on the flip side of a situation like this.

I had to back fill a deposit for the tenant who move out I.E. Paid out his share. I took sole control of the lease

I would believe that I am entitled to the entire deposit then, will let you know how I get on

shopper2011

Why would you even consider a loop hole to with-hold a deposit. Landlords have a bad name for this carry-on. Repay tenant B their money and let'em sort it out with A

The_Conductor

Good luck with it.
Did you return the deposit to Tenant A- is that why you believe you're entitled to their portion of the property deposit back?

By the way- just because they vanished into the night- does not mean their responsibility towards the property was extinguished.

The deposit is not the landlords- but it is also not Tenant Bs.

I believe it would be an abuse to assume that just because you took over paying the rent for the property in its entirety, unless you can show you refunded Tenant A their deposit, that you are entitled to it.

Do let us know how it goes- I wouldn't assume you're entitled to it though.........

freeflowing

shopper2011 wrote: »

Why would you even consider a loop hole to with-hold a deposit. Landlords have a bad name for this carry-on. Repay tenant B their money and let'em sort it out with A

Who said anything bout with holding??

The reason I asked is if tenant A turns up out of the blue looking for their half, I'd like to know where things stand legally..

The_Conductor

freeflowing wrote: »

Who said anything bout with holding??

The reason I asked is if tenant A turns up out of the blue looking for their half, I'd like to know where things stand legally..

Providing the property has been returned to the landlord, and any applicable deductions have been made from the deposit, the landlord would be legally expected to return Tenant's A deposit, less any reasonable deductions, to Tenant A. Tenant B would be entitled to the deposit they gave the landlord, less any reasonable deductions, back from the landlord. Tenant B is not entitled to Tenant A's deposit- why would they be? Its not the landlords money to keep either- they have to make a fair and reasonable effort to return it to the appropriate person.

Neon_Lights

Oh yeah in my case I can show that funds were transferred from the Original Tennant and email conversations of that regard. I think the common sense not legal approach would be to return to myself, assuming that I officially took sole control of the lease.

I would rather not chase up the previous occupant however notorious for pulling fast ones and would be a nightmare getting the money back off of them if it does get to that stage.

spaceHopper

If the rent was paid into LL's bank account by both tenants then the LL can return the deposit to both bank accounts