Tennancy Agreement & Non Protected Deposit Question

[reddannio]

Hi,

 

Just want a bit of advice on a couple of issues if possible.

 

My partner and i found a short term tenancy (3 months) through a private LL back in Feb 2012, we paid a deposit of £700. On moving out the LL returned £600 and when we queried this, we were told that a deduction was made for additional rent as we stayed '4 extra nights'. This would seem reasonable but for the fact that, when we enquired about staying on for '3 days' the LL said this was 'fine' and could we show prospective tennants around the property. There was no mention or agreement on additional rent, if this had been discussed we would have been able to make an informed decision as to whether to stay on or not. I would have also assumed this would have been paid (if discussed and agreed) up front and shouldnt have been deducted from the deposit.

 

I realise this is only £100 but the money isnt the issue i have and as the LL has been very patronizing in his responses to my questions, i wondered if i have a case for making a claim. I subsequently asked the LL whether my deposit was held in a DPS to which he replied that it didnt need to be, as the contract was less than 6 months it was not deemed to be an assured shorthold tennancy. From what i have read this is not the case and all tennancies through private landlords post 1997 should be ASTs.

 

Any advice welcome

 

Many Thanks

Red

[Steve__M]

Personal opinion is that the default assumption should have been that rent may have been expected for the additional days, and that even if LL did not say anything, tenant had a degree of obligation to bring up the subject.

 

I suspect that you are right that the tenancy may well be an AST as its 3 month length may not make any difference. The LL is therefore liable to be sued for failure to protect deposit. Iamnotalawyer though and there are lots of complexities in Landlord and Tenant law.

 

If your tenancy continued past 5th April 2012 then you may be able to make a claim under the modified tenancy protection rules (that would get you between 1 and 3 times the deposit if you won). In some sense this is a separate issue from the rent issue - if you sued LL for both the £100 *and* the deposit protection failure you might find you lose the moral argument and Judge might be inclined to decide you didn't have an AST after all!

[reddannio]

Personal opinion is that the default assumption should have been that rent may have been expected for the additional days, and that even if LL did not say anything, tenant had a degree of obligation to bring up the subject.

 

I suspect that you are right that the tenancy may well be an AST as its 3 month length may not make any difference. The LL is therefore liable to be sued for failure to protect deposit. Iamnotalawyer though and there are lots of complexities in Landlord and Tenant law.

 

If your tenancy continued past 5th April 2012 then you may be able to make a claim under the modified tenancy protection rules (that would get you between 1 and 3 times the deposit if you won). In some sense this is a separate issue from the rent issue - if you sued LL for both the £100 *and* the deposit protection failure you might find you lose the moral argument and Judge might be inclined to decide you didn't have an AST after all!

 

Thanks for the response. I agree with you about the £100 rent issue but i am inclined to want to pursue them for non protection of deposit. Can i submit a claim using N1/N208 solely for the non protection issue, given that all but £100 of my deposit was repaid or do i need to use this non payment of full deposit as a reason for bringing the case?

[raydetinu]

If the tenancy ended prior to 6th May 2012, I doubt you can sue IMO, as the LL had 30 days from 6th April 2012 to protect it, under the new act.

If dates ok you sue for non-protection of deposit and not being given the details!

Was the contract on an AST form?

[reddannio]

If the tenancy ended prior to 6th May 2012, I doubt you can sue IMO, as the LL had 30 days from 6th April 2012 to protect it, under the new act.

If dates ok you sue for non-protection of deposit and not being given the details!

Was the contract on an AST form?

 

We moved out on 5th May but as we were tennants post 5th April we still had a case? Anyone know?

 

Sadly I don't have the original 'contract' which was just a one page document downloaded from the Internet.

[raydetinu]

Not sure as it is on the cusp, I think only a court could decide!

You would also need all the contract details to confirm dates etc.

Even if you did sue and were successful, the judge would take under consideration that the deposit has in fact been returned and may not award any compensation at all!

Under the old scheme you cannot sue for compensation after the tenancy has ened, although many tried.