That has to be one of the most confusing things I've ever read.:? I haven't kept it, the tenant sued for the return of the deposit plus three times its amount. Therefore they got it back and then some. So, I paid for the damage they caused and three times the deposit. The tenant sued on the grounds that the deposit was not protected, it was nothing to do with damage caused. Damage caused by tenant = money paid by me for repairs = deposit held back. So far I'm not financially better off, I'm just the same as I had to pay for cleaners, painting over scratched up stuff etc. Tenant sues = return of withheld deposit and then some. Me = loser by just under £3000. If I was incredibly rich, owned a string of properties and thought the tenant had been diddled out of their money I might shrug it off. As it stands I own one flat (along with the building society) and am a nurse. So perhaps you can understand why I'm feeling a bit annoyed.

Thanks, Steve. Yep, logistically it would be very difficult for me to sue from outside of the UK. I'm in a completely different time zone for one thing. Also there's the money aspect. My brother has been handling things (he attended the court appearance where it was decided that I was liable and not the agent) but in fairness to him he's very busy with other stuff and can't devote much more time to this. This is a very interesting response, Sali, thanks. It's ringing some bells. I'm going to send the info to my brother. I think the very least I'm doing to do is sue the tenant for the return of the deposit. Thanks again, everyone. Good luck to you all with your own troubles.

The agent held the deposit, not me. I can't sue the agent, I'm pretty sure he's covered himself nicely, not only that it's difficult for me to do that from outside of the country. I certainly can't afford UK legal fees on my wages. I actually offered to return a substantial part of the deposit to the tenant once I was being personally sued (which, considering damage had been caused I thought was reasonable and showed willingness on my part to resolve it out of court) but the tenant refused and suggested that I sued the agent myself. It's already been pointed out higher on the thread by another poster but seemingly the agent does not have to inform me of my responsibilities but yes, you would have thought he'd have been looking out for my interests. There does seem to be the cloudy issue of a letter which was sent by the agent to the tenant mid tenancy to inform them of the change in the law and asking them to contact the agent with regards to this. Does this sound right to anyone? I'm all for being protected by the law - hey, I'm a tenant myself in someone elses property right now - but it seems to me that the law leaves the letting agents free to do what they like, safe in the knowledge that they won't be sued, it'll be the landlord.

Many thanks for your reply. No, I only have the one property. Sadly I've lost over 6 months of savings over this. As for failure to protect the deposit, as I said, I was not made aware of this by the agent and I'm pretty sure I'm not on my own in that regard. That may not seem like much of an excuse to people but I think in some instances landlords get done over just as much as tenants by agents. I certainly think I have. I paid an agent to manage my property and instead I have to pay out twice. I've had a look around this section and whilst it does seem to be mostly tenants with issues I'm hoping to find a few more landlords. All the information I've read seems to be quite confusing. Nowhere does it state that the agent has to inform the landlord that they are responsible for lodging the deposit. We are attempting to change agents at the moment but funnily enough he is slow to return calls. Another agent has told us that the current agent may have a claim to money he would have earned from the property if we break the lease halfway though the current rental agreement. At the moment I'm leaning towards taking out a claim against the tenant for the return of the amount of deposit which was withheld due to damages. In all the correspondence the tenant never denied that damage was caused, the sole point of the complaint was that the deposit was not protected. It's nothing like Monopoly, this lark, is it?

Can I just say as a landlord myself this makes no sense to me whatsoever. I live outside of the UK and pay someone to manage my one little property. He is supposed to contact me and tell me what I need to know. I can catagorically state that he didn't tell me anything at all about a deposit protection scheme. I'll bet that a fair proportion of landlords who use agents wouldn't have a clue either. The reason I'm posting this here is that I've just lost £3000 of my hard earned money to an ex tenant who I was told had caused enough damage to warrant having most of their deposit held back. Now, I'm sorry that the tenant didn't get their money back but I'm more sorry for me having to pay for the damage the first time round then again plus three times that amount as well as costs. My tenants advice to me was for me to sue the agent. Well, that's great but I've got no money left now.

Hi everyone, I hope this story makes sense to someone here. I am a landlord and am currently living outside of the UK. I have had the same agent for over 11 years with no trouble until last year. My brother (he acts as the go between for me and the agent) told me that a previous tenant was causing a fuss as they didn't get their deposit back. I asked why, he said because they had caused damage and left it dirty, requiring money to be spent. Fair enough, I thought, until he mentioned something about a deposit protection scheme. There was a court hearing to determine who should be sued ie. the agent or me and for some reason it was decided that the tenant should sue me. And they did, to the tune of £3000. I was not at the court case as I am not in the UK at present. My understanding is that the agent sent the tenant a letter about the deposit protection scheme when it came in but that he/she did not respond to it. They moved out some time after that, didn't get the deposit back, tried to get it off the agent then went to court. I got a court document sent to me to complete on which the tenant had written that they had attempted to contact the defendant - me - and that I had refused to discuss the matter further. This was a lie as it was the first I had heard of it. I sent the form back saying that to my knowledge the deposit had been withheld to compensate for damage caused and that the tenant had not attempted to contact me at all. Next thing I know it's been decided before going to court in the tenants favour and I'm down £3000. The document was dated 7th of April, got to my brother on the 14th and said I had 14 days from the date to appeal, which of course has now passed. So....I know it's really long winded and a bit vague but I'd like to hear from any other landlords out there who have been in a similar position. My main area of confusion comes from how on earth the court decided that I was the person to be sued in the first place when the agent manages the property. I knew nothing at all about the deposit protection scheme so how can I be responsible for it? Anyone else in the same boat? Can I sue the tenant for damages or is it too late now because I should have put it on the form as a counter claim? And it seems to me that the agent should bear some responsibility for the case but the court decided that it should be me, can anyone shed any light on that? It's a very long and complicated story and if you got to the end of it, thank you! Any thoughts?