Am I right in thinking landlords the deductions from my deposit are unreasonable?

[nikkikitch]

Hi

 

I moved out of a property which I had rented for two years around a month ago.

 

I kept it in really good condition but there were three minor damages including a burn on the carpet off some curling tongues, a small stain on one carpet and water damage to the bathroom cabinet door.

 

To add to this, the landlord went on holiday whilst we were moving out and booked new tenants to move in the day after we left. As a goodwill gesture to try and ensure an easy return of deposit, i had the house professionally cleaned including the carpets which cost me £150. Usually the landlord would inspect the property first then have it professionally cleaned themselves!.

 

I've just been on hols for two weeks and in that time, the landlord promised the deposit would be returned, it has only been returned today and she has made deductions of £325!

 

Just to clarify the water damage, one of the MDF doors under the sink has been slightly wedged open by a box in the cupboard and over the two years, water has obviously dripped down and caused the top of it wear away. Again, very minor and the rest of the doors is fine!

 

Shes trying to charge me £125 for the new door, £150 for a new carpet and £50 to remove the carpet stain.

 

I am a reasonable person and said that i would agree to £100 being knocked off for all 3 which i think is fair. I cannot be expected to replace a whole carpet that has been in the property for years for one small burn when she could easily use a small square of carpet and should i even be expected to replace a bathroom cabinet door that was damaged by water?!

 

I have photos of all three pieces of damage.

 

Another point worth mentioning, in the two years i lived there, the boiler broke down probably once per month and i was left with no hot water for days at a time on a number of occasions. The french doors also broke ad she left them unlocked and unfixed for 6 months. Whilst i certainly complained about both of these, i never knocked money off the rent or anything like that.

 

Any advice appreciated!

[raydetinu]

You need to raise a dispute with deposit protection scheme and put your point to them, if it was in fact protected?

if there was no condition inventory or photos taken when you moved in, unlikely she can prove anything.

[mariner51]

No, your thinking is wrong, as we do not have access to move in/out inventories, however you admit...

1 small stain (wine?) in one carpet not FWT

2 carpet burn in another, caused by your curling tongs not FWT

3 kitchen base unit door water damage due to ajar being ajar by contents for duration of your T

 

 

LL can charge for prof replacement/repai/labourr based on age & expected lifespan. He certainly does not have to patch with a carpet square,

If your deposit was protected in approved scheme , then raise ADR dispute and let LL justify his deductions.

[raydetinu]

well if you admit you caused some of the damage then yes you have to pay for it to be put right, less an allowance for fair wear and tear.

i.e. replacing damaged carpet would be cost of original carpet/fitting, less wear and tear for age. ( carpets usually 6-8 years life depends where and use of course ). not new price or betterment; like for like.

[nikkikitch]

So i just found out that whilst my landlord originally protected my deposit, she did not extend it when we extended our tenancy! Therefore I presume she can't make any deductions and in fact has broken the law!?

[raydetinu]

Yes she can make deductions; however you can now sue for it all back and for compensation if deposit not protected; she then maybe counter sue for damages, but will be up to judge to decide what's fair.

[mariner51]

So she used an Insurance-based scheme rather than a custodial scheme?? The non-protection breach does not prevent her from making deductions from deposit, only that she cannot use s21 for repo until deposit is 'returned'.

[nikkikitch]

She used this company......http://tds.gb.com/

 

Not sure if thats an insurance based or custodial scheme? Whats the difference?

[raydetinu]

TDS is an insurance based scheme; where the LL or Agent keeps the actual deposit amount; and it is insured, so if anything happens you can get your deposit back via the scheme. (i.e. LL wont give it back or makes unjust claims and the like ) but you have to go through their ADR route or of course you can just sue the LL!

Custodial scheme DPS is where the deposit is actually paid into the scheme and they hold it until you leave (LL has no access to it, unless they make a claim and it is resolved )

In all schemes any undisputed amount MUST be paid to tenant within 10 days of leaving property, but of course you must tell them that you have left!

[nikkikitch]

OK well she took nearly a month to pay it back and kept making excuses as to why it wasn't paid...her laptop was broken for a week apparently (of course it was).

 

The deposit company have told me i need to speak to CAB or a solicitor, is that right? Can they not get involved? So i actually have to sue her!?

[raydetinu]

well if as you say the deposit was no longer protected through them, then yes you will have to sue her for the remainder and for non protection.

make sure you send a letter before action to her, and you never know she may pay up.

[nikkikitch]

Thanks for your help.

 

Can i just clarify then, even though she did originally protect the deposit, because she didnt extend it, that's still illegal right?

[raydetinu]

Correct! deposit must be protected at all times.

When original the contract ends and it goes periodic, that is effectively is a NEW contract, but on the same terms.

[nikkikitch]

Great! Thanks for your help.