Tenant leaves early then theatens action on deposit

[Notwenam]

I put my house on the letting market in March and was approached by Janet and John (not real names) a young couple wanting to leave home and live together. For some reason they wanted to wait until she was 18 before taking on the joint tenancy which was a 6 month AST starting 3rd April rent of £750pcm all inclusive and deposit of £600. We did not take an inventory.

I was not fully aware of the requirements for securing the deposit, it was one of those things that I meant to get around to but.....

All went well during may and June but in the 5th if July I got a call from a neighbour to say that Janet and John were apparently moving out, July's rent due on the 3rd having not been paid. I contacted Janet who said that they were breaking up and she was moving out but that John was staying. There were several contacts with both of them during which I pointed out to John that they were liable for the balance of the rent for the fixed period and he said in a text message well you have got our deposit you can keep that. In another Janet said that the agreement was invalid anyway because she was only 17 when she signed it.

The end of the story is that Janet moved back with her mother and John moved to a new job 250 miles away. The house was left in reasonable condition. It needed a good clean, there was damage to some doors and wallpaper from scratching by a dog, the kitchen floor vinyl was torn where they had tried to move the fridge freezer and various things were missing (phone (but not the charger!), router, crockery, kettle, and the power supply for the Virgin cable modem).

My view was to keep the deposit against costs and unpaid rent and not pursue them any further but as I had a forwarding address for neither of them I did not confirm this to them (neither could I pursue them through small claims without addresses!)

Two weeks passed and I have got a text message from Janet saying that as I did not secure the deposit she is offering me this opportunity to return it.

Clearly she has been advised and now I have checked into things I can see what she is on about. Apparently she can take me to court for the deposit plus x3! But hang on a mo I thought the agreement was invalid because she was only 17! Also the deposit on a joint tenancy should surly be returned to them both and if I give it to Janet then John could come on to me for the same thing?

Of course I am open to suggestions but my thoughts are to proceed as follows:-

1. Text her saying that I will respond to her request but that text is an inappropriate means of communication and I need a letter from her or at least an address so that I can write to her.

2. Write to her making the following points :-
- They did terminate the agreement early and are liable for 3 months rent £2250.
- They did cause damage and take some items (list of values and costs) say £1000
- I have a text message from John stating that I can keep the deposit and in light of this I had been minded not to pursue rent and costs.

3. Apologise for not securing the deposit and offer unreservedly to repay it but point out that we need to agree between the 3 of us to whom the deposit is repaid and for this I would need written consent from John if I were to repay the whole deposit to Janet. For this purpose can she please supply Johns address so I can write to him.

4. Point out that if I do return the deposit than I will revisit my options on pursuing them through small claims for £3250. (now that I have their addresses).

5. Ask her to confirm how she intends to proceed.


Hopefully she will see that the balance is currently in her favour and agree to let it drop.

Advice, information, opinion and criticism all welcome!

Mike

[MrShed]

Thought 1(overriding thought): This is far from a simple matter, there are numerous points of law involved here, each contradicting the other. I would strongly advise you consult with a specialist solicitor over and above whatever advice you receive here.

Do we know yet whether Janet was in fact 17 at the time of signing the agreement? Is there any question of John being under 18 at the time of signing?

My current personal thoughts are as follows:

- The underage aspect means that no "tenancy" has been given, to either party(Janet or John). In fact a licence has been created with the terms/contract in the "tenancy agreement", even though this was not the "spirit" in which the agreement was offered.

If I am right, then what this means for you is that you have been VERY lucky, but I must stress not through any good management on your part - it was extremely foolish to let a property a) without the appropriate tenancy deposit protection and b) to anyone whose legal age status you were not 100% clear of. I'm sure you realise this though, so not going to harp on. What it means is that the contract stands, but the tenancy deposit aspect does not.

[Notwenam]

Thanks Mr Shed.

I have no proof of age for either tenant. John is clearly in his early twenties and they made this big performance over not wanting to sign until she was 18 and delaying the signing until after her birthday. Based on what they were saying she was 18 when she signed. Shoukd I have asked for proof?

Mike

[MrShed]

Yes you should have if there was any doubt at all. As a minor, she cannot be held responsible - it is not dissimilar situation to buying booze etc to be honest.

That said, I have just found information that states that this may in fact have been a tenancy, as the older "joint tenant" can be seen to hold the tenancy in trust for the minor.

I would be inclined based upon this information, to work on the basis that you could be held liable in worst case scenario for £2400. With that in mind, text back stating ONLY that you will only respond to written communication(you MUST not enter into any further communication with them not in writing).

Key point: have you relet the property yet?

[Notwenam]

Sorry somehow I saw the first part of your post and then the rest.

I cannot be clear whether she was under age when she signed, at the time she claimed she was 18 later she claimed she was not now she is trying to rely on the tenancy agreement being valid for a claim re deposit.

Would you reccomend I return the deposit?

[Notwenam]

I have not let the property or attemted to do so as I have now put it up fo sale

[Planner]

I think shes obviously obtained the tenancy by deception is shes under 18 but thats a matter you will have to look at through your solicitor.

The outstanding rent £2250 - £600 (the deposit) - £1800 (x3 compensation for non tds compliance) = £150 you technically owe them (£75 each).

If you add on the £1000 for damage and missing items (although Im not sure how youve gone from "the house was left in reasonable condition" to £1000). I asume you have a check in inventory?

I would invite her to take you to court. Its a bluff. She would need him on board as well to take you to court (all interested parties must be involved in a claim) which hes obviously not keen, and you will then counter sue for £850 (which they technically owe you).

[MrShed]

Under no circumstances would I say you should return the deposit. You should allow them to sue, then countersue - although agree with Planner about the £1000 figure seems VERY high for damages.

[Notwenam]

Thank you for clarifying the situation for me.

There was no inventry, perhaps the phrase reasonable condition was ill judged, I mean the place was not trashed! I guess is we were being amicable then I would have accepted the dillapidations and patched them up myself, £1000 was a stab in the dark and a nice round number. When you come to add them up and done by tradesmen. £200 for a thorough clean. £250 for repacing and fitting 4m x5m vinyl floor, £50 for the Router, £30 for the kettle, £20 for the phone, £150 for a decorator to deal with the scratched walls and doors. Total £700.

I have sent a text asking for her to write to me and can but wait.

Mike

[MrShed]

No inventory means no deductions. Therefore if they sue and win, you owe them £150 overall.

[Notwenam]

Hmm.. do you imply that the vinyl flooring, wallpaper and varnish should have been on the inventory.

[MrShed]

Yep - not just implying, but stating categorically that every fixture and fitting, and its condition, should have been listed on the inventory, and this signed by the tenant as an agreeance of the base condition upon commencing the tenancy.

[Notwenam]

Hmmm....... My ingnorance on such matters is clearly profound o wise one!

Thanks for your help I will see if a letter materialises.

Mike

[MrShed]

Well let me ask you a question(just to illustrate the point).

You have lets say "wood flooring" listed on an inventory. That flooring could be ten years old. How would you prove that the current tenants have caused damage to it, without knowing the condition of that flooring at the beginning? A judge will not accept "well it just was them" - the inventory is the MOST IMPORTANT document in a tenancy(I would personally say probably AS important as the tenancy agreement), and the easiest one to get wrong.

Can I humbly suggest if you rent out property again, it may be worth getting an agent to do it for you?