Financial Hack Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Just a quick anecdote on my first experience of receiving a deposit back since the TDS legislation came into force. I received my full deposit today with no deductions as I had hoped. Actually my old LL was a pretty reasonable bloke, came round when I checked out and said the place was very clean but he was planning to redecorate anyway (it needed it TBH). Didn't dispute anything, just said he'd tell the TDS to refund the whole lot and I got it today. Not the most exciting story I know as there was no dispute so I didn't manage to test that, but at least it seems to be working so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGuffin Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Let's give credit where credit is due: Thank you, Labour. And yes, I am posting partly to wind people up. Fret not, there is still lots else we can despise them for. Edited July 28, 2009 by MacGuffin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Financial Hack Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 I won't deny the TDS is a good piece of legislation. Just a bit too little a bit too late, given the many times I've been f***ed around by landlords over deposits in the past. More needs to be done to secure long-term tenure for decent tenants though. I really love the place I've moved into, and would like to stay for several years if possible, but with the law as it is we could always be chucked out with fairly minimal notice, which is one of the most frustrating aspects of renting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGuffin Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 True, but I think the market is taking care of your concerns, at least for the next few years. I would think tenants will be ina fairly comfortable position for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Have to concur with this, had 2 deposits returned in full under the scheme, outside the scheme the norm is for the agent/landlord to simply steal some money because they know they can. It's not worth the hassle for them to nick a couple of hundred quid because now they need your agreement in order to take it, put up any kind of a fight at all and they just back down and give it all back. Last time for me agent spoke about cleaning costs, I refused to accept any costs and stated I would use the TDS dispute mechanism to fight them on it, they immediately backed down and paid up. Previous to the scheme they just would have taken the money. Here is what I have learned. Never clean at the end of the tenancy. Before the scheme it wouldn't matter how much expense and/or personal effort you put into cleaning, they would use cleaning as an excuse to steal cash from the deposit at the end of the tenancy. Therefore cleaning is wasted effort/cash, you lose the money a clean would cost regardless. So don't bother. Now that the scheme is in force you should also never clean, they won't bother fighting you now that the scheme is in place, just stand your ground and say the place is as you found it. Which, incidently, will usually be the case. Landlords/agents NEVER clean whether the previous tenant did or not. They will try and charge you for it as you would expect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LettingsLady Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Here is what I have learned. Never clean at the end of the tenancy. Before the scheme it wouldn't matter how much expense and/or personal effort you put into cleaning, they would use cleaning as an excuse to steal cash from the deposit at the end of the tenancy. Therefore cleaning is wasted effort/cash, you lose the money a clean would cost regardless. So don't bother.Now that the scheme is in force you should also never clean, they won't bother fighting you now that the scheme is in place, just stand your ground and say the place is as you found it. Which, incidently, will usually be the case. Landlords/agents NEVER clean whether the previous tenant did or not. They will try and charge you for it as you would expect. That depends how good the LA/landlord is!! If they're doing their job properly then that just won't work. We never 'stole' bonds before TDS and nor have we done so since. A good inventory should be clear and precise about the state of cleanliness when the tenant moves in. If the property is not clean on check-out I give the tenant an opportunity to clean it (fair deal since the tenancy has ended and tenant has moved out) and if they don't do it then they get billed for the cleaning. Proper account is taken of wear or tear and we are quite generous BUT we do go to the TDS and the TDS takes a very fair view where there is inventory or photo or video evidence. So I'm sorry if you've been shafted before but your advice is SO wrong and I hope people on here take it with a pinch of salt. Of course it's cheaper to clean yourself than get someone in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Financial Hack Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Now that the scheme is in force you should also never clean, they won't bother fighting you now that the scheme is in place, just stand your ground and say the place is as you found it. Which, incidently, will usually be the case. Landlords/agents NEVER clean whether the previous tenant did or not. They will try and charge you for it as you would expect. Depends on the condition report really. We had a very nice lady doing our check-in and condition report, and she wrote down the house as being 'not cleaned' in her report, though really there was just a bit of dust on the skirting boards and in some of the kitchen drawers and cupboards, but I ain't complaining as it means I won't have to do too much cleaning when I move out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymadman Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) As someone who lives at the bottom end of the rental market, I also think the HMO legislation was good. It's wrong that there are local variations in things like some councils robbing landlord for the licence fee, and they'll probably push it too far in future. But at the moment it leads to properties with decent safety standards at the end of the market where there could be a big temptation to cut too many corners, which is a Good Thing. With TDS it's on my list of three things I think Labour got really right. Just a freeking damm shame that this makes the score for Bad Things v Good Things about 19,813,546,557,684,318,464 - 3. Edited July 31, 2009 by mikeymadman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacGuffin Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) As someone who lives at the bottom end of the rental market, I also think the HMO legislation was good. It's wrong that there are local variations in things like some councils robbing landlord for the licence fee, and they'll probably push it too far in future. But at the moment it leads to properties with decent safety standards at the end of the market where there could be a big temptation to cut too many corners, which is a Good Thing.With TDS it's on my list of three things I think Labour got really right. Just a freeking damm shame that this makes the score for Bad Things v Good Things about 19,813,546,557,684,318,464 - 3. mikeymadman, I am genuinely curious about the other two items on your 'Thank You Labour' list. Please share. EDIT *ooops, just realised you named one of the others (HMO legislation). What is the third? Edited July 31, 2009 by MacGuffin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 mikeymadman, I am genuinely curious about the other two items on your 'Thank You Labour' list. Please share.EDIT *ooops, just realised you named one of the others (HMO legislation). What is the third? Er, erm, ... must be when they abolished tory boom&bust, innit? Oh, and the smoking ban seems to have improved life. I have to confess to being pleasantly surprised by that: I was altogether less complimentary about it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 That depends how good the LA/landlord is!!If they're doing their job properly then that just won't work. We never 'stole' bonds before TDS and nor have we done so since. I think that you are in the minority. At my last rental (before TDS) I went though a company that worked their own arbitration scheme. But they still trumped up a charge for "cleaning". The cost was fair (20 pounds), but it annoyed me that they made no attempt to allow me to rectify the problem whilst I was doing the checkout (I asked at the time if there were any problems and they said "no"), but two weeks later they said "you left a few cobwebs" and took the money. I could have appealed but I was moving away (which they knew) and didn't have the time to do this tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Have to concur with this, had 2 deposits returned in full under the scheme, outside the scheme the norm is for the agent/landlord to simply steal some money because they know they can.It's not worth the hassle for them to nick a couple of hundred quid because now they need your agreement in order to take it, put up any kind of a fight at all and they just back down and give it all back. Last time for me agent spoke about cleaning costs, I refused to accept any costs and stated I would use the TDS dispute mechanism to fight them on it, they immediately backed down and paid up. Previous to the scheme they just would have taken the money. Here is what I have learned. Never clean at the end of the tenancy. Before the scheme it wouldn't matter how much expense and/or personal effort you put into cleaning, they would use cleaning as an excuse to steal cash from the deposit at the end of the tenancy. Therefore cleaning is wasted effort/cash, you lose the money a clean would cost regardless. So don't bother. Now that the scheme is in force you should also never clean, they won't bother fighting you now that the scheme is in place, just stand your ground and say the place is as you found it. Which, incidently, will usually be the case. Landlords/agents NEVER clean whether the previous tenant did or not. They will try and charge you for it as you would expect. wouln't agree on that - parent's rent out cottage at end of farm road and each time tenant moves out, mother down on hands and knee's cleaning it. typically roof, walls etc getting repainted on rotation I even cut the grass for the tenant No TDS - they dont take deposit because tenants just mess about and hold back last months rent anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymadman Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I didn't want to mention the third because I reckoned it would stir up a load of irrelevant debate, but here goes. Not the smoking ban. It makes pubs more attractive for me, yes. But given what people do to themselves in pubs banning you from smoking at the same time is killing your liver seems daft. It might make me more likely to go into a pub (that'll be about 4 times a year instead of 0), but any pub that needs to rely on my trade to survive is well dead anyway. I thought they actually got the civil partnership thing exactly right. I was dead against it before (and am still against the repeal of clause 28 in Scotland). However my views have changed over time, and I now think they hit exactly the right mark by creating something effectively equivalent to marriage but calling it something different. None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of the (ho)rse (a)les that have been running this country into the ground for too long. *repeats point that score for Bad Things v Good Things under Labour is about 19,813,546,557,684,318,464 - 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I thought they actually got the civil partnership thing exactly right. I was dead against it before (and am still against the repeal of clause 28 in Scotland). However my views have changed over time, and I now think they hit exactly the right mark by creating something effectively equivalent to marriage but calling it something different. I never thought I'd live to see the day Peter Tatchell spoke for me. But on the subject of civil partnerships, he did exactly that when he said two wrongs don't make a right. The state has no business poking its nose into our private lives. It has no business with marriage. Leave that to churches and other organisations that people opt in to, and leave it up to each church/etc what kinds of marriage they recognise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Financial Hack Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 I never thought I'd live to see the day Peter Tatchell spoke for me. But on the subject of civil partnerships, he did exactly that when he said two wrongs don't make a right.The state has no business poking its nose into our private lives. It has no business with marriage. Leave that to churches and other organisations that people opt in to, and leave it up to each church/etc what kinds of marriage they recognise. But marriage has a number of legal implications which are the state's concern. The civil partnership just lets gay couples take on the legal advantages and disadvantages of marriage basically. It's not marriage proper though, because marriage is a religious thing. BTW, i'm getting married next friday and am absolutely cacking myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 But marriage has a number of legal implications which are the state's concern. That's one wrong. The civil partnership just lets gay couples take on the legal advantages and disadvantages of marriage basically. And that's another wrong. They don't make a right. Note: it gives a right to gay couples. It denies the same right to everyone else, including those (like myself) who have ethical objections to an institution (marriage) that comes from a religion I don't subscribe to, and with a huge historical baggage of bigotry and intolerance, enforcement of class distinctions, outdated sexual roles, etc. I'd take a civil partnership over a marriage any day. But I'm denied that, because I'm heterosexual. It's not marriage proper though, because marriage is a religious thing. Indeed, that's just fine. And if you're comfortable with the religious implications of it, go right ahead. The economic and legal relationship should be properly separated from the religious and lawful procreation in the eyes of the lord stuff. If you need the tax benefits to declare that you love her, what does that tell us? Sure, if you have joint responsibilities (most obviously children) and joint assets (like the family home) the state should respect that, and may have to arbitrate in the event of a breakdown. But that can happen in different circumstances: why should two people owning a house have a different legal status to three or more - whether that be an arrangement of convenience, or a commune? And why should two sisters jointly owning a house be unable to enjoy the benefits - as was on the news a year or two back when one sister died leaving the other big death duties on half the shared house? Just separate the religious stuff from the legal. Open the legal status to everyone without discrimination (subject to meeting some defined criteria), and leave the religious to the churches/etc. Yes of course, make it the norm for anyone signing up for the religious bit to be automatically enlisted for the legal (unless they explicitly opt out), but that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymadman Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 BTW, i'm getting married next friday and am absolutely cacking myself! All the best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LettingsLady Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Just a quick anecdote on my first experience of receiving a deposit back since the TDS legislation came into force.I received my full deposit today with no deductions as I had hoped. Actually my old LL was a pretty reasonable bloke, came round when I checked out and said the place was very clean but he was planning to redecorate anyway (it needed it TBH). Didn't dispute anything, just said he'd tell the TDS to refund the whole lot and I got it today. Not the most exciting story I know as there was no dispute so I didn't manage to test that, but at least it seems to be working so far. I think the TDS is working too .....and for both parties. I've just come back from sunny (not) Wales to find a TDS conclusion waiting for me. The tenant was offered the opportunity to clean the filthy house and return one room back to a neutral colour - and then she offered £50 to the LL. The LL refused and it went to TDS (still a bit slow) and the tenant had to pay £168 in addition to the £50. The moral of this story is that I suggested that the tenant increase her offer as the house really was filthy (detailed inventory) and one room a garish colour. She refused - but the LL would have accepted £150!! Congratulations - hope it went well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Note: it gives a right to gay couples. It denies the same right to everyone else, including those (like myself) who have ethical objections to an institution (marriage) that comes from a religion I don't subscribe to, and with a huge historical baggage of bigotry and intolerance, enforcement of class distinctions, outdated sexual roles, etc.I'd take a civil partnership over a marriage any day. But I'm denied that, because I'm heterosexual. You could have a civil marriage at the Registry Office. No religious aspect to that (by law). The only reason that gay couples have a separate system is because the government couldn't bring itself to include them in civil marriages (presumably because of the m word). Would have been a whole lot simpler if they had done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 You could have a civil marriage at the Registry Office. No religious aspect to that (by law).The only reason that gay couples have a separate system is because the government couldn't bring itself to include them in civil marriages (presumably because of the m word). Would have been a whole lot simpler if they had done. Exactly. The ceremony is the good bit[1] about marriage[2]: a celebration. But it's about a future in an institution laden with oppressive baggage and historical connotations. As for whether love needs props like tax perks, I'm with Shakespeare: love is not love that alters, when it alteration finds. Keep the things properly separated! [1] except insofar as the parties may let the glamour of the occasion blind them to more important issues, like compatibility ... [2] setting aside the pros and cons of the other half Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LettingsLady Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 As for whether love needs props like tax perks, I'm with Shakespeare: love is not love that alters, when it alteration finds. Keep the things properly separated
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.