Unprotected Deposit Landlord has changed agreement wording!

[Jhawc24]

To break this down firstly its a private landlord; Tenancy agreement started on 1st October 2012, deposit of £595 paid. Tenancy ended Mid March 2014 - Rent fully paid up until end of March 2014. No deposit protection scheme information sent. No inventory checklist for property done.

 

 

Handed keys back 19th March, heard nothing wrote on 26th March requesting return of deposit, wrote again on 10th April requesting return giving LBA 14 day letter.

 

 

Received a letter today, it states that:

 

 

1. I agreed a new AST on the 4th June 2013, and the deposit scheme sentence has been crossed out and she has written on that the deposit is taken to cover any damages on completing tenancy, and the tenant has agreed that this money will be held by the landlord and not a tenancy deposit scheme. As this is a copy I never got given the original one I signed, she conveniently kept it, I was never told this had changed and have not initialled next to the rewording, and when I did resign I never noticed this - I am usually pretty careful at reading stuff, I am not convinced this is the original front copy of the agreement.

2. In her letter she states that tenants were due to move in on the 1st april but were unable to as the whole house needed a good clean, small bedroom needed redecorating, kitchen and bathroom filthy, cooker needed deep clean as did the fridge, gas hob was broken and had to be replaced, blind missing from small bedroom, carpets needed cleaning and garden unkempt. Invoice is attached. There is no invoice attached but I presume the work amounts to the full deposit as there is no cheque included either. As no inventory was taken I cannot argue with her. I agree the carpets should be cleaned that's normal practice, the garden was pretty much a state when I moved in so no change there, I never had a problem with the hob, I left the property in the same condition as when I moved in.

 

 

So any advice gladly appreciated.

 

 

Regards, Joan

[The Carpet Cleaners]

amendment Number 1. is not worth the paper the LL has typed it on, as neither the LL nor the T can alter the law, and deposits must be protected.

 

2. If there was no inventory when you moved in, then LL has nothing to compare with and therefore cannot prove any dilapidation (if any).

 

i would continue with the court action as you have issued LBA and just sue for the return of full deposit.

[Jhawc24]

Thank you for your response, should I respond to her letter? or just continue?

 

 

Regards Joan

[mariner51]

Just continue with SCC asap. Keep her letter. Judge will respond to it in no uncertain terms as she appears to have condemned herself.

[Jhawc24]

Preparing to take this court, a little confused do I use the N208 claim form? and claim the compensation as well? And is the wording still as in the sticky's, as they were added some time ago.

 

 

Regards Joan

[The Carpet Cleaners]

my advice is to just use money claim online, and not to go for the non protection. Just ask for your full deposit back + costs for the case. I am not sure which form it is.

[Jhawc24]

Thank you for your reply.

Just a little confused so advice greatly appreciated. The shelter site suggests form 208 which u can't do on money claim online.

If I just use the money claim form can I still claim my deposit back as it wasn't protected? My LL has still not sent me the so called invoice for taking all my deposit. Although I'm not out to make money out of it, I just want my deposit back without these ridiculous deductions.

 

Regards Joan

[The Carpet Cleaners]

Yes money claim online is the quickest way to claim for the return of the full deposit, you should also mention in the claim that the deposit was not protected, and hence you require the full return.

[mariner51]

AFAIK, even if you claim for full deposit, LL is entitled to deductions if Judge is convinced they are valid and reasonable. Onus is on LL.

[Jhawc24]

AFAIK, even if you claim for full deposit, LL is entitled to deductions if Judge is convinced they are valid and reasonable. Onus is on LL.

 

This is my main concern. The LL did not include her invoice but it must be at least equivalent to my deposit. I know there are reasonable arguments against deductions such as fair wear and tear, there was no inventory, that I was not given any opportunity to put things right, etc.

 

If I use money claim then I am not claiming under the non protection so have less chance of getting my deposit back.

 

Regards Joan

[raydetinu]

You may not be able to claim for compensation for non-protection, but you can state that it was not in fact protected and as such you are entitled to it back.

However LL can counter claim for damages, if there are any, but will have to back that up and judge will decide if they are fair.