Unprotected deposit despite AST clause to use DPS and disputed deductions

[JB585]

Our AST agreement states that our deposit of £250 will be held under the terms of the DPS custodial scheme. We gave notice and have left the property.

 

 

The DPS have confirmed that our deposit has not been protected with them.

 

 

We spent days cleaning before moving out, and borrowed a carpet cleaner. I returned the keys and kept tight lipped as the landlady inspected the property to avoid an argument. Landlady made a comment that the house was clean, pointed out that she would have to put right the fixings we had put up for pictures, and some damage to the wallpaper where the cat had scratched. We inspected the level of the oil tank and she finished the inspection saying she would withdraw the deposit and return it.

 

 

We then received a letter stating that she could not tell us how much of the deposit she was returning as she would need to see if a professional carpet cleaner could remove stains we had left in the carpet. These stains were not mentioned in the inspection.

 

 

She lists a number of other things including light bulbs that need replacing, and broken fire bricks in the stove, these was not mentioned in the inspection.

 

 

No amounts are discussed, so we do not dispute and the letter concludes that she will write to us following the carpet cleaning.

 

 

15 days after the date the carpet cleaning was scheduled we write to her and ask for an update the response is quick deductions are as follows:

 

 

£70 for cleaning the carpets

£40 replacement of bulbs and cleaning bathroom

£15 replacement of bathroom shelves

£75 50% contribution to replacing of fire bricks in the log burner. The total cost was £149.95

£50 towards cost of redecoration quote was over £200 and I have only taken £50 from you towards this cost.

 

 

Magically £250. This came with the a cheque for £30 for unused heating oil that we had paid for.

 

 

The DPS have confirmed that our deposit has not been protected with them, and we have written to the landlady to ask for a DPS reference and to ask if not the DPS how our deposit has been protected. We have not yet put in writing how we disoute the deductions. She has texted us now a few times asking us what we despute to which we have simply asked for a DPS ref from her records. Any request has been side stepped and she has neither confirmed nor denied protecting our deposit.

 

 

We were unaware that the fire bricks had cracked and over a year ago a chimney sweep at her expense had come to sweep the chimney and instead condemned the log burner saying it needed a metal baffle plate fitting and a co alarm. She never had this work done so we have been unable to use the stove. Now that we have left we are apparently joint responsible for replacing the bricks. The stove company's website states that the bricks purpose is to insulate the stove for better combustion and do not need to be replaced if they crack.

 

 

We dispute £40 for replacing bulbs and cleaning a bath as excessive, and we had already cleaned the property to a standard we felt matched that of the state we moved in. The inventory has no record of state of cleanliness.

 

 

We broke and damaged two glass corner shelves during our tenancy. They were put up resting on wooden battens fixed with sticky foam pads, over time these pads have lost their sticky, and were therefore rather precariously balanced in place, a guest knocked one and it fell and broke, I knocked the other and it fell and chipped. It was when I knocked the other that I realised how inappropriate the fitting was. We did not replace them as with young children we did not want more accidents. In researching a fair price for replacement it is clear that this type of shelf should come with more robust clamp type fixings. Is it fair to see this as ware and tear considering that they were not installed correctly?

 

 

We dispute the need to clean the carpets as we had already cleaned them and any minor marks (though she describes them as major) should be seen as fair use over two years of family life on cheap carpets.

 

 

£50 towards costs of redecoration seems at first reasonable. Though the whole house is in need of a once over anyway.

 

 

My question is having stated that these are her deductions from the deposit, if we dispute some of them does she have any right to claim that there are further cost (for example for redecoration) that we are now liable? (the fact that she has returned £30 for oil would suggest to me that this is her final claim of what we owe.)

 

 

As our AST agreement states that the deposit is to be protected under the terms of the DPS custodial scheme, (the terms state that the deposit must be lodged within 30 days of receipt). I do not see how she could protect the deposit late and avoid a penalty in court. Any opinion as to where we would stand with counter claims of additional costs?

 

 

Any opinion gratefully received.

[Steve__M]

Unfortunately, the proper way of submitting a claim relating to non-protection of the deposit is quite expensive as compared with what you could get back if you win the case and then get the money out of the landlady.

 

A court claim for just the items she has claimed would be cheaper, but you may not get all your money back.

 

Your best bet might be to convince her to refund your money with a letter threatening to claim for failure to protect the deposit.

 

If you sued her for non-protection then she would be liable to return the deposit and to pay you between 1 and 3 times the deposit (the specific figure is up to the judge).

[raydetinu]

write to her explaining that she broke the law regarding the non-protection of your deposit and ask her to return without any deductions.

You could sue for non-protection but it is expensive, although you would no doubt win.

The other way is to take her to the small claims court for the return of your deposit; she counter sue for deductions, but judge would not be impressed, any claim must be fair and take into account wear and tear.

best to try and negotiate a deal; but the law is on your side.