3 deposit issues

[chewbs123]

Hi all,

I know that there are lots of posts on deposits already but I have a few different detail issues the answers to which I haven't been able to find elsewhere. Hopefully this isn't a repost and may shed some light both for myself and others around the context of landlord/tenant/agent relationships.

To cut to the chase.. I was in the process of preparing my LBA when I came across a statement in my contract that says with written agreement by both parties the dispute can be sent to the Chairman or Chief Exec of ARLA for arbitration. Now I find this attractive because it avoids the risk of having to pay legal costs if the court finds in favour of the Landlord (I should say at this point that I absolutely believe that the Landlords costs are unfair but I am a bit of a worrier) but at the same time I can't help but think that ARLA will simply back the agent who appears to be on the side of the landlord and after an unsuccessful adjudication I would be in a weaker position to go to court.

So question (1) can anyone advise on using ARLA as an arbitrator? or perhaps any interesting stories about them as an active regulator?

This perception of collusion is also the underlying theme of my next question. At the start of the deposit dispute I specifically asked the Letting Agent via email whether they were acting as adviser to the Landlord or as a neutral party. They stated "Please note that our position at this stage of a tenancy is unbiased and one purely as stakeholder. We do NOT act for the landlord or the tenant."


However, since then I noticed that in an updated version of the list of dilapidations there were several statements from Agent with written arguments against my reasons for rejecting the costs.



Ok so this is not nice fine but my question (2) is it unlawful in some way for the Agent to act on behalf of the landlord in this case as they had already stated to be neutral? Any comment appreciated as I would dearly like to name and shame the agent as they have caused me trouble no end. (for instance there have been 4-5 staff leaving during this debate which has delayed proceedings by months at a time - I actually left the property in March 2007).


Another one of the issues the agents caused was that they did not arrange the inventory appointment until late in the process and I needed to reschedule which subsequently annoyed the inventory clerk. As a result the clerk was rude and unpleasant when performing the inventory checkout which was then biased. (For instance missing items that were actually still in the flat - the clerk just did not bother checking the 1-bed flat properly - these items were then removed from the dilapidations without apology or excuse). I complained to the agent but they met my expectations and dismissed my comments without action. On a presently disputed point, the inventory clerk notes "excessive scuffing to the walls". I have disputed this as fair wear and tear as they were caused by an ironing board being placed against the wall over the entire 12mths of our stay. There was no cupboard for the ironing board so it needed to rest either against a wall or furniture. I objected this as fair wear and tear and the AGENT - has responded that as the Inventory Clerk states that as this was "Noted on check out as excessive, therefore it cannot also be FWT as you suggest".

This brings me to Question (3) - what does a court rule as excessive vs. FWT?

It seems that everyone (agent/landlord/clerk) is against the tenant in most cases and if this is the case its really unfair.. I appreciate that this is a long post so thanks if you got here. Any answers or general comments greatly appreciated. I'll decide whether to go to arbitration or LBA in due course..

Chewbs.

[chewbs123]

<Bump>

Can anyone help pls?

[MrShed]

very little neutrality here. Saying they do not act for the landlord is plain wrong - they do. However, what they mean is that they do not hold the deposit with a "vested interest" - in other words, they hold the deposit on behlaf of the landlord, they otherwise have no involvment in the HOLDING of the deposit, NOT in deductions from, as they must act on behalf of the landlord with regards such deductions. Either way, whatever they said makes little difference, as it is nothing you can enforce.

3) IMO, marks from an ironing board is not fair wear and tear. A court defines FWT to be "damage" arising from "normal day to day use" of the property. Normal day to day use, again, varies in how it is interpreted. As I say, IMO, the damage described is not normal day to day use, and so is excessive. It would basically end up being at the discretion of a judge.

[chewbs123]

well not what I was wanting to hear but thanks for taking the time to respond MrShed.

[MrShed]

Half of my post disappeared :S dont know why! Anyway, it is by the by as the first half was not important. I realise it isnt what you wanted to hear....sorry!!