Getting house rental deposit/bond returned

The CAB or even Shelter, who operate a national helpline for advice:

============================================================ For future reference, the best way to handle this would have been to take control of the situation before you left. Assuming you know in advance when you will be leaving (and most tenancy agreements require one month's notice), you should refuse to pay the rent for your final month(s) of occupancy, while informing the landlord or his agent that, as you have not damaged the property in any way, you are entitled to a refund of your deposit, and therefore you are classifying the final month(s) rent as having already been paid via the deposit. Problem solved.

Surely that is bad advice. Whilst it may do the job, it will be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

============================================================== For future reference, the best way to handle this would have been to take control of the situation before you left. Assuming you know in advance when you will be leaving (and most tenancy agreements require one month's notice), you should refuse to pay the rent for your final month(s) of occupancy, while informing the landlord or his agent that, as you have not damaged the property in any way, you are entitled to a refund of your deposit, and therefore you are classifying the final month(s) rent as having already been paid via the deposit. Problem solved.

For future reference there is a rent depsoit holding scheme in operation.

Which given that the person is leaveing anyway, this matters how?

tim

The landlord could sue for the money, and still hold on to the deposit. So it could be more expensive in the long run.

Mark

By the time it gets to court the debt will have been satisfied (by the deposit) and the judge will tell the landlord to stop wasting his time (assuming that there is no damage that the deposit should cover)

That is the intention.

No it won't

tim

The tenant might be moving to new rented accommodation elsewhere, and might require to produce a satisfactory landlord's reference which would of course not be forthcoming in unsatisfactory circumstances.

Assuming no damage, he couldn't hold on to the deposit, it would simply be set against the rent owed, which would cancel out.

The only way it would be more expensive is that the tenant would be stung for the court fees involved in what amounts to a null claim, being a valid claim 100% offset by a valid counterclaim.

I had this problem a couple of years ago. I had a 6 month lease with notice to quit after the 6th month, which I did. The rent was up to date and paid on time.

The landlord ignored every communication from me, including letters sent via her soliicitor. After 4 months of getting nowhere, I gave her 10 days to repay the deposit in full or I would lodge a small claim for the amount (400) plus interest and expenses, and she could explain her failure to the Sheriff.

As it happens, she did comply with the time limit but, because of the time of day she paid the funds into my account, it didn't show on my balance until the following day, by which time the small claim was lodged! Needless to say she quickly remembered how to get in touch with me to ask for the action t be stopped. I did (eventually!) halt the action and was down the small claims fee, but it was worth it!

John

That is why many landlords ask for 1.5months rent as deposit.

I think many tenants do not understand they can be held liable for all sorts of things: e.g. fixing holes in the wall could easily wipe out a large chunk of the deposit.

He's presumably gone past this point if he knows that he has to give notice

tim

Not all that easily. Any deductions from deposit have to be reasonable and commensurate. It is normal practice that an allowance for redecorating costs between tenancies is included in the rent (though some agreements may, I'll admit, provide otherwise). Small holes in the wall such as for hanging pictures can easily be filled by a decorator before repainting, at virtually no additional cost.

In any case it should be asimple matter for a tenant to forestall such problems by filling any holes himself which he may have made, or indeed not making them in the first place.

Cleaning is another frequent source of squabbles, with landlords trying to charge tenants a cleaning fee even though the premises were spotless when vacated.

Under the new law the landlord is not allowed to hold onto the deposit, hence he might *have* to sue the tenant.

It is a weakness in the scheme that tenant can leave without paying the last months rent as it completely defeats the intention of the deposit. Indeed, some landlords have apprently decided to do without the hassle of the deposit altogether.

What new law? Surely it has always been the case that the landlord was obligend to return the deposit.

It is not normal to redecorate after every tenant. In this case someone has to be employed to come around and fix all these holes and paint over them.

That is perfectly reasonable, but many won't bother. In any case they are usually supposed to ask for written consent or forbidden from making such holes ('coz they might put a nail into a pipe or electrical cable).

That can also put a large dent in the deposit. Often the agent will employ a special Co to do it at short notice (rather than the landlord doing it himself).

Yes it is. There may be exceptions if the tenancy has been so short that there is no objective need to redecorate, but if it's the kind of property which specialises in short tenancies and where tenants do not generally renew after the initial 6 months, then one might expect a rolling redec programme to be in place, i.e. you repaint only part of the place after each tenant (a different part each time, obviously).

Yes, well, someone has to do it, right enough (unless subsequent tenants could be expected to want to hand similar pictures on the same bloody nails), but if someone's going to be coming in anyway to do a partial redec, they might as well fill all holes in sight while they're there.

That's their lookout then, and they can't complain if they get charged for it.

There is usually never any danger of damaging pipes or cables, and the main reason for "forbidding" it (or making it subject to permission) is to give landlords an excuse for charging for putting it right!

Then they can pay for it themselves. The usual standard to which premises are handed over is not one to rival that of a hospital operating theatre, but merely that they have been properly swept and dusted.

But now he's not allowed to hold it personally at all.

tim

Harrumph! What a pity that site isn't legacy browser compliant.

Anyway, that silly bit of pointless law only applies south of the border. It's a pity they haven't even cited it.