Tds Deposit Return

[repetitive bleats]

Long story short.

Landlord is selling up and ended my lease. I attended the inspection and moved out. They gave me a bill for cleaning etc. They then asked the company to redo the inspection and billed me for a couple of more things (such as cleaning all the carpets in the house - when only 1 stain was mentioned in their inventory) which they want to take from my deposit. 3 weeks later they have said that they weren't happy about the company that did they inspection and just carried out one themselves after which they are asking for double the originally requested amount. I'm happy to take it to the TDS - does anybody know (for definite) what the TDS take on this 2nd and 3rd inspection that i didn't attend?

[Dr Elk]

Long story short.

Landlord is selling up and ended my lease. I attended the inspection and moved out. They gave me a bill for cleaning etc. They then asked the company to redo the inspection and billed me for a couple of more things (such as cleaning all the carpets in the house - when only 1 stain was mentioned in their inventory) which they want to take from my deposit. 3 weeks later they have said that they weren't happy about the company that did they inspection and just carried out one themselves after which they are asking for double the originally requested amount. I'm happy to take it to the TDS - does anybody know (for definite) what the TDS take on this 2nd and 3rd inspection that i didn't attend?

They sound like complete towels, so you should probably contest everything. The Burden of proof is on them, not you. Just write to them telling them you don't consent to any deductions and then get the TDS in.

[Aidan Ap Word]

Landlord is cash strapped ...?

Regardless: get TDS in ... might delay you getting your money back .. but hey ... your cash wouldn't get any interest in the bank anyway ... the delay might make finding your next deposit money hard though ...?

Aidanapword

Edit: typo

Edited June 17, 2010 by Aidan Ap Word

[repetitive bleats]

He's even trying to charge £3 for a new battery that was in the clock on the wall... Reluctant landlord twit.

[Dr Elk]

He's even trying to charge £3 for a new battery that was in the clock on the wall... Reluctant landlord twit.

If you're feeling vindictive you can check the land registry to see who the mortgage is with and tip them off its been let out. If he's a reluctantly landlord he might not have permission from the lender. And maybe tip off HMRC too.

[repetitive bleats]

Thanks. I've been told that the TDS might take 6 months to decide and my deposit will be held until they do.

As usual this seems pretty one-sided. I am being asked to take time out to debunk each item that he is claiming for - there are a lot of them. This is a no lose situation for him. Is there any way I can claim for the time spent on putting together my 'defence' if some of his claims are considered to be spurious?

[Aidan Ap Word]

3 GBP for a battery on wall ... does the electricity the battery uses not fall into wear & tear since you were not able to choose a suitably eco-friendly/viable photo-electric one? The clock on the wall is their fitting & fixture ... so they made the choice about it's sustainable execution ... so if the battery dies it is their problem, surely ... since the product you were renting out included chronology recording services?

How ridiculous this country is when landlords play such games? What proportion is 3 GBP of a months' rent? What landlord has time (even) to sit down and invent such things? What does the landlord do (except perhaps just sit around and invent ways to extort money from tenants?) ... or is this part of the lettings agent's value-add service?

Sorry this is a content-less comment ... but I really do feel for you. I would suggest you stick it to him/her ... but the time & effort that you have to expend on their whim is so galling. Really galling. Not worth the pain of all this rubbish, no? Especially given that a certain class of person learns nothing form being taught a lesson?

Good luck .. and hope the next landlord makes up for the rubbish of this one ... we live in Hope!

Aidanapword

[ChumpusRex]

As stated above, they must return the uncontested part of your deposit immediately. Only the contested portion will be held until they adjudicate.

Not had to contact them myself, but based on discussion from a few friends and from scanning internet forums, they tend to be reasonable fair, with some bias in favour of the tenant. One catch is that they are absolutely ******** about following their instructions to the letter.

E.g. a landlord once had his property completely trashed by the tenants, and the tenants had even admitted in conversation. He provided, high quality digital photographs, which included a newspaper (as proof of date in each image) and each image was time-stamped (in the EXIF data) by the camera. However, the instructions for submission of digital photographs specified that the date must be visible in the image - as the landlords photos only had the date visible in the file properties, TDS ruled that the photos were not admissible as evidence. And therefore, as the landlord had provided no evidence of damage cause by the tenants, that the entire deposit should be returned to the tenants.

[Riedquat]

E.g. a landlord once had his property completely trashed by the tenants, and the tenants had even admitted in conversation. He provided, high quality digital photographs, which included a newspaper (as proof of date in each image) and each image was time-stamped (in the EXIF data) by the camera. However, the instructions for submission of digital photographs specified that the date must be visible in the image - as the landlords photos only had the date visible in the file properties, TDS ruled that the photos were not admissible as evidence. And therefore, as the landlord had provided no evidence of damage cause by the tenants, that the entire deposit should be returned to the tenants.

It's pretty simple to fake EXIF data, marginally harder to accurately fake a paper with the date on so they might just've had a point there. If it was that badly trashed surely there would be something else to go on (e.g. inventory)?

[tim123]

It's pretty simple to fake EXIF data, marginally harder to accurately fake a paper with the date on so they might just've had a point there. If it was that badly trashed surely there would be something else to go on (e.g. inventory)?

I assumed that he meant the timestamp as recorded by the camera. The date provided by the newspaper must be in the photo, it can't be anywhere else.

tim

[ChumpusRex]

It's pretty simple to fake EXIF data, marginally harder to accurately fake a paper with the date on so they might just've had a point there. If it was that badly trashed surely there would be something else to go on (e.g. inventory)?

Yes. But my point was that the *only* evidence of date that they accept (or accepted - maybe they've changed their T&Cs now), is having the camera superimpose the date on the image. If the date hasn't been printed visible in the image, the photos aren't dated, cannot be further considered.

He did have an inventory - but the photos were the proof that the place were not as described on the initial inventory. It's all well and good sending a written statement saying that 'x was broken at the end of the tenancy, but was satisfactory at the beginning'. But at arbitration they'll want evidence of how badly x was broken - and that means photos (or an independent witness).

[Riedquat]

Yes. But my point was that the *only* evidence of date that they accept (or accepted - maybe they've changed their T&Cs now), is having the camera superimpose the date on the image. If the date hasn't been printed visible in the image, the photos aren't dated, cannot be further considered.

That's depressing. Also very easily faked. I was trying to give them the benefit of doubt for a minute, that perhaps it might not simply be a case of brainlessly sticking to an arbitrary rule in the face of common sense.

[ChumpusRex]

That's depressing. Also very easily faked. I was trying to give them the benefit of doubt for a minute, that perhaps it might not simply be a case of brainlessly sticking to an arbitrary rule in the face of common sense.

Unfortunately it looks like that is the case - I'm sure that there are some reasonable people there, but the problem if you get a jobsworth, is that the deposit protection companies have the right of arbitration without any recourse of appeal. So, if you get an idiotic judgement like this, you have to abide by it (or you ignore it, and drag it through the courts, but not before the tenant has the landlord's money - or vice versa).

My advice when dealing with these companies is to make sure that you have crystal clear evidence documented in a way that even an imbecile can understand, and make sure that even an imbecile can tick every single box in their T&C.