Greedy landord keeps 2000 deposit

I'm not a lawyer but I'd say your friends would have to use the arbitrator.

The landlord would need some evidence but your friends could use their photos and have a strong case. He could say things like they were taken before the damage but it would be a matter of fact and who to believe.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Didn't each photograph show a copy of a newspaper from the last day of occupation? ;-)

It's more a legal thing so post on uk.legal.moderated.

I don't know how enforcible the clause is. I would guess it's referring to RICS arbitration which may not cover residential property and could be costly. Contact them - Nothing can remove a parties right for redress using the court system. I don't know if the fact that they refused to use arbitration could be held against them though, no doubt answers to this could be found by searching on the Arbitration Act 1996 .

The deposit (and thus any interest unless the contract says otherwise) is there's, the landlord has to justify any deductions.

Deposit disputes are a FAQ and the procedures are straightforward - see previous answers -

In future, from 1/10/6 all landlords and agents will have to be registered with, and abide by, the government sponsored tenancy deposit scheme - so hopefully this will reduce the number of such disputes.

General links and info. on my webpage

Daytona (Landlord & tenant, not a lawyer)

No there are no newspapers in the photographs which is a shame, however the photographs were taken when the house was completely empty and cleaned.

Adrian Smith

Thanks, some useful links in there.

In future, they should take out Tenants Contents insurance - this provides protection from landlords pulling stunts like this.

The landlord must make a claim through the tenants' insurance policy and they're not going to be diddled. Even if they are, the tenant only loses their excess.

What a lot....

I think that you will find that most ( or even all ) of the above charges can be challenged.

The best line of attck may be the Unfair Conditions as defined by the OFT.

See:

"3.134 Section 91 of the Arbitration Act 1996 makes a compulsory arbitration clause, ie: a term that requires that disputes between the parties must be submitted to arbitration, automatically unfair under the Regulations if it relates to claims of £5,000 or less, or £3,000 in Northern Ireland.35 This is always unfair under the Regulations, regardless of circumstances. A compulsory arbitration clause made unfair in this way by the 1996 Act is legally ineffective and open to regulatory action in all cases. We may also object to compulsory arbitration clauses that are for amounts above the small claims threshold or apply to non-financial issues."

To avoid misleading you, I would suggest going through this document (and the examples) in detail and comparing the charges and conditions imposed by the landlord with those defined in the Guidance Document.

Please let us know the end result.

Flop

Thats a good idea I am at a 'checkout' in a couple of weeks time I will do that.

Apparently not, according to another poster.

You sue for the return of your deposit. The landlord will have to counterclaim for any damage caused, and it is up to him to prove it.

Good idea, I did not think of the OFT. Thanks..

Simple answer.

Go to the small claims court, lawfull deductions are very well defined by law. The LL has to prove loss and not the otherway around.

Good luck !!

Thanks for all the advice.

One further question:-

There was/ is an agent involved, when/ if the case goes to court, should I make my claim against both the agent and landlord jointly?

Just the LL, your contract is with the LL and the agent is simply working on the LL behalf.

Yes; it increases your chance of recovering any money due.

Daytona

You can email them the clause and get confirmation - snipped-for-privacy@oft.gov.uk

Daytona