partial deposit returned - advice

[roger_ramjet]

Hi All,

I have a couple of questions regarding a deposit that was not returned in full, any advice here would be helpful.

Some background:

We had a 12 month lease on a house from Nov 2006 - Nov 2007, and stayed on for a few more months until end of Feb 2008 while we were trying to negotiate a new lease. A couple of weeks after we moved out after bugging the landlord for our deposit, he returned some of it - roughly £800 out of £1200 - to the real estate agent. Apparently he felt the need to take out £400 for painting and cleaning costs, none of which we agree we are responsible for. £200 of this was to repaint the bathroom as there was a buildup of mould on the ceiling due to poor ventilation, as we could not physically open the bathroom window. He blames us for this. So after a couple of weeks of negotiating via email and phone, asking for proof of damages and costs, we are ready to take this to court.

So here are my questions:

1) We have only had written correspondance via email so far, I plan on sending a final request for the full deposit shortly via post, but can email correspondance be used in court to show we have attempted negotiation?

2) When I went to pick up the deposit and found it was not all there, I decided to leave the partial deposit with the real estate to hold onto until we sorted out the full amount, as I did not want to be seen as accepting the terms of the landlords claim. Would it be wise to pick up this partial deposit from the real estate before putting a serious court threat to the landlord, in case he goes down and takes it all back?

3) There was an 'inventory', which just lists the items in the house as it was fully furnished, but there was no mention of the condition of anything, and nothing but the lease was signed by anyone. Reading stickies and other posts here, it seems without a signed condition report (before or after the lease), it sounds quite likely the court will act in our favour. We have no documentation ourselves, no photos, no records, I'm not sure we even have the original lease. How badly will this work against us?

4) I moved into the house a few months after the lease was signed, and wasn't required to sign it. I did pay rent directly to the landlord though. 2 of the original lease holders have recently moved back to their home countries, so where would I personally stand in my ability to take this guy to court, considering I haven't signed anything?

I'm hoping this will not be a difficult situation, as we are quite fed up with the landlord at this stage. Any advice or answers would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

[tiglet]

Bump.

[roger_ramjet]

Hi,

If no-one can answer my questions above, could someone point me in the direction of someone / an organisation that could give some advice? I'm relatively new to the country, so am unsure of where to go for advice on these type of matters.

Cheers

[waterbottle]

I will have a go at answering.

1. Email correspondence can be used as evidence.

2. It might be a good idea to take the money from the estate agent and write to confirm that you are accepting it as part payment of the full amount you are owed. I cannot be sure about this though.

3. I have heard differing advice regarding this. However it seems that this should be mostly in your favour. Without a valid inventory the judge would need to be given a good reason to find against you. He would have to find this evidence more compelling than your testimony.

4. If he is liaising with you as a tenant and you have email evidence then this might function a tacit agreement. More importantly i think that once you pay rent and he accepts it a tenancy agreement is created. Not sure exactly which type though.

I would think about doing all the preliminaries for a small claim against the LL. Does he owe the whole deposit to you or are you collecting it for other tenants?

[tiglet]

Did the landlord place your deposit in a deposit scheme like he was supposed to?

[qbal]

If you have paid rent and received keys you have an agreement as an assured shorthold tenancy so you have all the rights that someone who signed a tenancy would have. As for an inventory, if he hasn't provided one that details the state of the property then he has no proof that there was any damage caused by the tenant since he can't prove what state the property was in when you moved in. As waterbottle says, you are in a stronger position that the LL on this point.

Tiglet, unless the deposit was paid after April 2007 it would not be eligible for registration with the deposit schemes. He says he moved in a few months after nov 06 so probably prior to the april 07 start date for TDS compliance.

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by roger_ramjet

A couple of weeks after we moved out after bugging the landlord for our deposit, he returned some of it - roughly £800 out of £1200 - to the real estate agent.

Are you saying that the landlord sent the agent the money for the agent to then forward to you? This is unusual.

Go back to your tenancy agreement. Check what it says about the deposit and who holds it. Do the phrases "stakeholder" or "landlords agent" appear anywhere where the deposit is mentioned?

The answers to the above will change the advice you need.

[roger_ramjet]

Hi,

Thanks for the responses.

waterbottle: I am collecting for the other tenants as well as myself, to pass on to them as some of them are no longer in the country. When I moved in to the house, I paid the deposit directly to the person leaving (as seems to be the norm in share-houses), so my name won't be on any deposit receipt. This is partially why I asked question 4.

tiglet: the lease was taken out before TDS became a requirement.

esio trot: Yes that's correct, my feeling is that the landlord did this to try and avoid confrontation with us. The original tenancy agreement is currently out of the country with one of the original tenants but I've asked her to check this.

On the TDS point, it is probably irrelevant but still might be worth mentioning. We did attempt to renew the lease in December 2007, we signed a new 12 month lease for the same rent price, then 2 months later received a letter stating that rent was being increased, and that we had to also backpay the rent increase back to beginning of December. We rang and told them they couldn't do that as we had agreed & signed a lease at a certain price, and there was no clause for rent increase. The real estate came back to us and said that while we had signed the lease, the landlord hadn't, so the lease was effectively not valid at that point and they felt they could increase the rent. Again we refused, and due to other (unrelated to the house) circumstances a couple of people had to move home, so we gave our 1 months notice and moved out.

On the newer lease we had signed, there was no mention of TDS, and stated that the landlord would be holding the deposit. So I'm guessing as the landlord hadn't signed the lease, it probably wasn't "active", and therefore the lack of TDS wouldn't come into effect?

Cheers

[waterbottle]

Sending a lease for you to sign and then asking for it back seems to be another trick used by sneaks LLs and agents. They then keep it blank and sign if and when it is advantageous to them.

There might be an arguement that everything proceeded as if he had signed but I have no idea if this would hold up. Did ANYTHING AT ALL change between the tenancy that ran from Nov '06 to '07? If yes, then it may be the case that a new AST was created automatically. Therefore he would not be TDS compliant.

Did he give you a signed copy of the first tenency agreement? If not, this may be regarded as setting a pattern of the LL's behaviour. Did he, via email acknowledge the new agreement in any way?

Did you let him know about the lack of ventilation? How can you substantiate this? If you were reasonable and he didn't do anything you would stand an excellent chance of getting the money back for the repairs he did. You could also make a claim for disrepair (Don't know the amount though - this can be worked on. I'm guessing between 200-800 pa depending on severity, maybe even more.). You could also claim for lost, mildewed clothes and any other losses, expenses and damages.

Perhaps you have copies of letters that you or your flatmates sent by post but which the LL or agent didn't acknowledge. Without a certificate of posting they would be less useful but it would come down to who was more reliable in the judges eyes; your sneaky LL or you and your flatmates.

I would try and get a copy (or the original) of the first agreement. You will need it. Then think about who, besides yourself, can attend court and what those who are absent will say on their statement of truth.