dallypro

Question About Deposit Returns

12 posts in this topic

Hi All

I am in a bit of a pickle, and wondered if anyone could help!

I have recently moved out of a property, and gone through the process that goes with it. While at the property i made a mess of 1 or 2 areas, which i cleaned to a good standard before leaving.

The landlady did her inspection, and ok'd everything. I received my full deposit cheque in the post.

2 days later i am left a message by the letting agent, saying that they have been instructed to cancel the cheque as the landlady felt that on second inspection, the property was damaged and would need to be repaired.

Since then a huge claim has come to me for repairs.

I think the claim is unfair, and although i agree that there is some damage, i am not convinced that i caused it and that it isn't fair wear and tear.

It has not gone to a dispute yet as we are still talking about it, but i am worried it might. Any advice? Someone suggested that because the original inspection was ok, she shouldn't of cancelled the cheque. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all going through the deposit protection scheme then?

Who are you dealing with the letting agent or the landlord?

If its not been held in the deposit protection scheme i'd be asking for the deposit back straight away or i'll be starting proceedings against either the letting agent or the landlord for not complying with the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you move in an hand over a deposit? It sounds like they have not deposited the money in the deposit protection scheme as they are required. They haven't got a leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it all depends on damage and what caused it.

if you have been there for years then place would most likely need painted again before letting out, so dont let them charge for that.

in my rental the bathroom white painted walls are constantly turning grey along the top, obviously damp due to poor ventilation, some of it just wipes off with tissue. When i move out in a few months the Landlord cant charge me for repainting it. Kitchen ceiling also has damp patches caused by water leaking onto the floor under the bath, water gets down through the seal somehow, been sealed and resealed a few times but always happens (no break in seal ever visible) . Now have a plastic box pushed against the wall under the bath and water drips into it which i have to empty every week. Landlord aware of problem so cant charge for fixing it. Kitchen window i believed was not installed or sealed correctly, paint work around it has faded and flaked due to damp and wooden border beneath it has come away from the wall, a few times during heavy rain window has leaked somehow, water trickles down it from the top.

loads of cracks in the plaster, all on walls facing the road. Had the water company threaten to turn the water off as a test had shown a leak, at the pipe at front of house. Landlord had it fixed and its what i thinked has caused the plaster to crack, so obviously can bill me for it.

i threw one of his sofas out, there were 2, the cheap faux leather that cracks if you just fart on it. I have been renting the property for 6 years so sofas were 6 years old. I told Landlord about there condition and he allowed me to get rid of one. Do you think he could then charge for a replacement?

Edited by shifty_FTB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

I am in a bit of a pickle, and wondered if anyone could help!

I have recently moved out of a property, and gone through the process that goes with it. While at the property i made a mess of 1 or 2 areas, which i cleaned to a good standard before leaving.

The landlady did her inspection, and ok'd everything. I received my full deposit cheque in the post.

2 days later i am left a message by the letting agent, saying that they have been instructed to cancel the cheque as the landlady felt that on second inspection, the property was damaged and would need to be repaired.

Since then a huge claim has come to me for repairs.

I think the claim is unfair, and although i agree that there is some damage, i am not convinced that i caused it and that it isn't fair wear and tear.

It has not gone to a dispute yet as we are still talking about it, but i am worried it might. Any advice? Someone suggested that because the original inspection was ok, she shouldn't of cancelled the cheque. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance

You can sue for the bounced cheque. No need to argue about whether the inspection was OK or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sue for the bounced cheque. No need to argue about whether the inspection was OK or not.

Thought you can only sue for a bounced cheque if you are a business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The landlady did her inspection, and ok'd everything. I received my full deposit cheque in the post.

2 days later i am left a message by the letting agent, saying that they have been instructed to cancel the cheque as the landlady felt that on second inspection, the property was damaged and would need to be repaired.

I must assume that the cheque was made out by the agents then and was not held in the DPS, if not and you moved in after April 6th 2007 then they CANNOT make deductions from the deposit and you can pursue them through the small claims court and they WILL lose. IF there actually is damage then they must in turn pursue that through the courts.

If the money was held in a scheme you have the fact that a cheque was made out for the full amount (and any other evidence you have-keep the message) as proof that the place was returned free of damage. If they later carried out a further inspection with which they were not happy then tough, you cannot be held liable for damage that you can prove occurred after you vacated (see previous). After 14 days (?) lodge a claim for the return of the full deposit with the scheme.

Don' agree with them that there is damage, you have already agree as have they that there was no damage, why admit liability.

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage is the the driveway.

My car left some oil, which i cleaned up. They are now claiming that my cleaning has damaged the drive.

In other areas chippings are coming up from the drive, but it is apparent in the areas i cleaned for the simple reason that they are very clean and not weathered.

Makes it look much worse than it is.

The deposit cheque has been written by the letting agent, but i am dealing directly with the LL currently.

Is it worth talking to the letting agent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage is the the driveway.

My car left some oil, which i cleaned up. They are now claiming that my cleaning has damaged the drive.

In other areas chippings are coming up from the drive, but it is apparent in the areas i cleaned for the simple reason that they are very clean and not weathered.

Makes it look much worse than it is.

The deposit cheque has been written by the letting agent, but i am dealing directly with the LL currently.

Is it worth talking to the letting agent?

First, when did you move in-see above, second they agreed that you had not caused damage and then thought they fancied having your money, what is there to procrastinate over, they must prove damage not vice versa, was there an inventory, does it mention the drive at check in/check out. I don't see the difficulty, it is a straight forward case-they agreed no damage (they can't go wishy washy changing their mind after the fact*) they must return the deposit, they haven't protected the deposit? they must return the deposit.

* If damage could only come to light after the fact then they may have a case but its the plucking drive, hardly dificult to notice.

Edit. Whilst I think of it, its a drive, I presume tarmac-ed, whats the useful life of a drive? and how old is it, even if you were liable they can only deduct the cost of the damage, that is not the replacement value of the entire drive! but the value of what is there now that has been damaged by you and only the difference between what could be expected without damage.

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must assume that the cheque was made out by the agents then and was not held in the DPS, if not and you moved in after April 6th 2007 then they CANNOT make deductions from the deposit and you can pursue them through the small claims court and they WILL lose. IF there actually is damage then they must in turn pursue that through the courts.

If the money was held in a scheme you have the fact that a cheque was made out for the full amount (and any other evidence you have-keep the message) as proof that the place was returned free of damage. If they later carried out a further inspection with which they were not happy then tough, you cannot be held liable for damage that you can prove occurred after you vacated (see previous). After 14 days (?) lodge a claim for the return of the full deposit with the scheme.

Don' agree with them that there is damage, you have already agree as have they that there was no damage, why admit liability.

It could have been in an insured scheme rather than a custodial scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to know who your contract is with.

Let's assume for arguments sake, I took out car insurance with a large motoring organisation because I was happy with their breakdown cover.

Let's then assume that I get rammed from behind and need to make a claim.

I phone the guys I paid the money to and they give me a (short) list of preferred repairers .

I take the car in and when I pick it up again, I notice that the car has been damage while at the repair center, but the repair center paint over the damage and don't tell me the messed my car up.

So if I have no confidence in the guys that take my money and insist I take it back to the guys that messed it up in the first place I take it to court on the grounds that my contract was with the guys that took my money in the first place, would I be likely to win?

Well, despite the promise of quality workmanship and satisfaction guaranteed, I don't win on the grounds that although this very large organisation took my money, they were only acting as an agent.

Edit -

Typo in the word agent, I misspelled it with to A's

Edited by Son of Taeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now