Wasp removal...whose responsibility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Although it probably doesn't change the above, I don't think the deposit is really a prepayment. I would say it was money held in trust. A prepayment could be used without the tenant's permission, but using the deposit requires their permission or that of a court.

    This is a bit more explicit for agents, as with insured schemes, they now need to use a client money protection scheme.

    Comment


      #17
      [QUOTE=leaseholder64;n1076196]Although it probably doesn't change the above, I don't think the deposit is really a prepayment. I would say it was money held in trust. A prepayment could be used without the tenant's permission, but using the deposit requires their permission or that of a court./QUOTE]
      You're right, I had ignored that element of a pre-payment in trying to be clever!

      The trust element is actually a little contentious.
      I share that view, but it isn't supported very widely.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        Sorry, but this isn't correct...
        Not clear what you're saying is incorrect. Are you saying that claiming costs from the deposit for the example I've given is incorrect or that my saying you can't claim unless the clause is in the TA is incorrect?

        If the latter, I will have got it from somewhere as it's not the kind of thing I'd assume on my own. However, where I got it from may not be traceable. It could have come from NLA documentation, but if you've followed my other thread about charging potential tenants for referencing, I'm not sure I can take their word for anything anymore.

        Comment


          #19
          Has same problem it was bees i think or wasps cant remember but got specialist down and shared cost with tenants half half , you simply have to provide butler service it was 50 quid with a guarantee

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by tatemono View Post
            Not clear what you're saying is incorrect. Are you saying that claiming costs from the deposit for the example I've given is incorrect or that my saying you can't claim unless the clause is in the TA is incorrect?
            The part I'm saying that is not correct is your reference to the tenant fees ban.
            Originally posted by tatemono View Post
            Because of the tenant fees ban, unless you have a clause that states that you can deduct from the deposit for expenses you incur because of T negligence, you cannot claim them.
            "[E]xpenses that you incur because of tenant negligence" are not fees and are not affected by the tenant's fees act.
            So there's no need to have anything in the tenancy agreement (although it might help the tenant to understand their position).

            "[E]xpenses that you incur because of tenant negligence" are losses beyond the scope of a tenancy agreement and are the basis of most deposit deduction claims.
            If they were not allowed under the Tenants Fees Act, no one could claim for any damage beyond fair wear and tear.


            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              ok thanks for clarifying,

              I think I got my understanding from docs I've been reading in the NLA online library. Take, for example, this from their section on ending a tenancy where the landlord is (for some reason) liable for utilities and the tenant who has left has done so with utility payments to the LL outstanding:

              If the landlord wants to be able to offset the final bill against any deposit that he holds, it will need to be made clear in the tenancy agreement that the deposit can be used in this way.

              Comment


                #22
                We had this problem twice in our leasehold flat. As the nest was in the loft, this was considered the freeholder's liability and the buildings insurance paid. As it's so cheap, you may check as it's probably covered and I don't think it affects your premium and you don't have to pay any axcess. I just dealt with it and the insurance sent me a check to reimburse my costs. The tenants assumed it was my responsbility too, btw.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X