Unfair deductions from deposit

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

    Unfair deductions from deposit

    I need some advice on where to go next. Sorry this is a long one.

    Basically we moved into a property in 2017 all was fine for a year or so but then the landlord wanted us out and started inventing various things we had apparently done wrong – all of which were false btw and only started when we asked the landlord to fix the faulty boiler. The boiler was faulty meaning often had no hot water or heating for months nobody was ever sent to this, we had a gas safety check by a different plumber to the one the LL uses and he found the fault and logged it on the certificate, the LL is now denying any issue with the boiler and we do not have a copy of the gsc to prove this.
    In May this year we were told that we were being served with s21 2 month notice which states no fault end of tenancy (the property was instantly put back up for rent).
    We found a new house very quick and signed up we then gave the landlord 1 months notice so we weren’t tied to her house for 2 months, we paid for an extra month at new house so that we could immediately start moving out, within a few days we were living in the new house. We cleaned the house top to bottom I also cleaned the carpets using a vax carpet cleaner that we own.

    Final inspection day came and we were told everything was fine I was told that there were no problems with the property and it was in good order and condition was the same or better than when we moved in (same member of staff did inventory as well as move out inspection) , there were 2 senior members of staff from the letting agent who carried out the move out inspection in my presence, at this point I handed the keys over and left the property. As I was told all was fine I requested deposit back from DPS
    A checkout report was submitted to the Landlord, on page 2 of this document it states “The
    property has been checked against the inventory, no issues to report and I will attach a copy of the
    inventory for your records”

    3 weeks later we had heard nothing so I emailed the agents asking what was happening the stated “the landlord is adamant that she wants the carpets cleaning due to a smell of dogs in the property. She also wants a replacement key for the bedroom window.
    The cost of a carpet clean is £185 which we have obtained from one of our contractors and a key
    would cost in the region of £3-5.
    I will put these figures on the DPS site today”. At move out no mention was made of smells of animals (mainly because we didn’t have any and never have)

    We informed the agent that we have never owned a dog in the property for 2 reasons, firstly I am highly allergic to Dogs, this is a medically recognised condition which was discovered as a result of allergy blood tests following breathing.
    I am also Asthmatic and contact with dogs would further exacerbate this, secondly under the terms of our tenancy even if we did want a dog we were not allowed to keep dogs, as well as being tenants we are also landlords of a property we own and is let, we know the importance of adhering to terms of tenancy agreements.
    Our tenancy agreement does not require us to have the carpets professionally cleaned, nor is there any evidence on inventory or tenancy agreement that the carpets were professionally cleaned prior to commencement of our tenancy.
    During our tenancy routine inspections were carried out by the agent every 6 months, no issues have been raised, no animal smells have ever been mentioned. No animal smells were discovered during the move out inspection. 3 members of staff from the agents have now inspected the property since the end of our tenancy and none have reported any smells or signs of animals being present as there have been none in the property. All this was pointed out to DPS in evidence we submitted.

    The deposit was disputed so we sent all evidence including tenancy agreement and the report the agents had completed along with medical evidence that show my allergies. The LL didn’t submit evidence until the last minute, we asked for a copy of her submissions from DPS but by time it came the deadline for submission had passed.
    The landlord had produced a very amateur receipt for “professional carpet cleaning” which was apparently carried out prior to our move in, this invoice had no business name, a partial business address and fundamentally it did not contain anywhere any mention of our address. It was a very simple template invoice with cliparts, something I could put together in a few minutes.
    The landlord based her claim on this invoice saying that the carpet were cleaned prior to our move in.

    The DPS allowed in the landlords favour despite our evidence, I have numerous problems with this

    As part of the evidence the landlord has quoted the following section from the tenancy agreement in the letter that she submitted as evidence, the landlord has stated this as a fact
    "As the tenants signed the tenancy agreement which clearly states that all carpets must be professionally cleaned on exit and this along with the pungent smell of dog in the house means I have had to pay for the property to be professionally cleaned"
    This is not the wording of the tenancy agreement, which in fact states
    "3 (ii) To clean or pay for the professional cleaning of the property and the fixtures and fittings together with any blankets, curtains, carpets, linen and other items that have been soiled to the same standard as detailed in Schedule B"
    I provided a copy of our tenancy agreement as part of my evidence submission which clearly shows the correct wording. The carpets were not soiled as shown in the move out inspection report, and therefore did not require professional cleaning, even had any soiling been present the tenancy agreement says we are to clean OR arrange professional cleaning, we did actually clean all carpets before we left, we did this not from necessity but because it's always nice to hand a property over that has been properly cleaned.

    The adjudicator has stated in the adjudication decision
    "20. The letting agent has provided an invoice for carpet cleaning at the start of the tenancy. As such, I am satisfied that the carpets were cleaned to a professional standard at the start of the tenancy"
    Having looked at the submitted evidence I find an invoice which I assume has been provided by the landlord, however this invoice is very amateur in appearance and nowhere on the invoice does it state the address or customer, this invoice could be for absolutely any property or for any customer if indeed it is genuine at all.
    There was no soiling of the carpets when we left, they were in exactly the same condition they were at the start of our tenancy, as the photos on move out report show, the letting agents also confirmed verbally as well as on the move out report that there were no soiled carpets anywhere or smells in the property. The carpets were in the same condition as they were when we moved in. The move out inspection which the agent sent to the LL clearly shows no requirement for the carpets to be cleaned, we submitted this as part of our evidence to the DPS

    We were not informed at the start of the tenancy nor is it mentioned anywhere in the tenancy agreement or move in inventory that the carpets had been professionally cleaned before we moved in nor do any of these documents mention any requirement to have them professionally cleaned at the end of tenancy, unless as referred to above there is a requirement to clean or have them cleaned professional only if they had been soiled, these 3 words are critical and had the tenancy agreement been fully studied by the adjudicator that would have become evident quickly, and we would not now be unfairly out of pocket by £185.

    The DPS have basically said get lost, you agreed that the decision of the dispute resolution service was final and not appealable despite them failing in their duty by not studying the documents we provided fully and simply taking a letter from the LL as gospel.

    The DPS have said the only way to go now is court, the LL now has our money.
    We have done absolutely nothing wrong, we are good tenants keep a clean home and if anything minor comes up that needs sorting I just do it myself instead of making the LL pay over the odds for agents contractors, we are also landlords of a property ourselves and know exactly how things work and expectations are. The landlord is a very vindictive woman, she used in her evidence the fact that her previous tenants had apparently done the same so this time she wants money out of it. She has since been going round all the neighbours slating us saying that we trashed the place and were horrible people, unfortunately for her she told people who told us what she was saying.

    #2
    The arbitration is binding on both parties and the DPS seem to have accepted what the landlord said.
    There is no appeal available.

    The only route to proceed is a court claim against the landlord, which you can do by googling small claims court, or online at the government's money claim online service.
    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


      #3
      As #2.

      Also, I would write to the top person (chief executive/managing director) stating what has happened.

      If all is as you say, then it seems that the DPS arbitration is failing.

      Comment


        #4
        I have an hour ago received the following email following a complaint to the dps
        Hopefully the contents of the complaint will be used as part of the evidence by the new adjudicator

        Thank you for your email of 23 September 2019. I am sorry that you remain unhappy following my previous response.
        Having reviewed your comments in this email, along with the tenancy agreement an the adjudicator's decision, I am inclined to agree that the adjudicator has not full considered the terms of the agreement.
        I agree that this is important because the check out report did not record any difference in the condition of the carpets.
        I apologise for this error. I also apologise that the evidence and the decision was not reviewed in full when responding to your initial query.
        In light of this I have referred the evidence to a new adjudicator to complete a new decision. If any further sums are payable this will be paid by us.
        Kind Regards,

        Comment


          #5
          Good result

          Comment


            #6
            Astonishing result.
            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


              #7
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              Astonishing result.
              Indeed. Can you imagine the response if a landlord had complained?
              To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                Astonishing result.
                Not when looked at with a bit of common sense

                The basis of allowing in favour of the LL was an invoice which for carpet cleaning which has no business name, no business address, no customer name and crucially no address the alleged work was carried out at

                That and a letter/rant to the DPS which says she had them cleaned.
                In said letter she has misquoted the tenancy agreement, she has claimed that the tenancy agreement says at the end of tenancy the carpets must be cleaned professionally, what it actually says is we must clean or pay for the carpets to be cleaned IF they are soiled, the move out inspection clearly says the carpets do not require cleaning

                When looking at the actual tenancy agreement and the check out report it is very obvious

                In the email the senior adjudicator who reviewed has admitted that she also did not read the documents properly in coming to a decision when receiving our original complaint, in which I replied pointing out the obvious facts, the LL's invoice submitted certainly wouldn't meet the requirements to be submitted as evidence in a court, I would have expected someone with a law degree to have spotted that when it first went to adjudication

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by JK0 View Post

                  Indeed. Can you imagine the response if a landlord had complained?
                  Just to point out that we are landlords as well as tenants, we know what is required and when something has not been done correctly

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by icy75 View Post
                    Not when looked at with a bit of common sense
                    But they never review their decisions and decide they're wrong.
                    Even when they manifestly are.

                    Not just the DPS, all three of them have huge arbitration lead times and don't have an appeals process.
                    And they just don't reopen cases or admit they're wrong.
                    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


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      But they never review their decisions and decide they're wrong.
                      Even when they manifestly are.

                      Not just the DPS, all three of them have huge arbitration lead times and don't have an appeals process.
                      And they just don't reopen cases or admit they're wrong.
                      Seems like they do if you are determined enough and have strong enough evidence.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Reply to Dogs
                        by royw
                        What does your AST say about it?
                        05-12-2021, 23:20 PM
                      • Dogs
                        by Bridge2020
                        My tenant has asked if he can get a dog. Where do I stand on this ?...
                        05-12-2021, 11:23 AM
                      • Advice on s.8 & s.21
                        by Hetty911
                        Hi all,

                        Long time lurker, first time poster. Would be grateful for advice on the below.

                        Have a tenant on a AST which expired in July and has rolled onto a periodic tenancy. Over past 6 months rent has been delayed, partial and on two occasions unpaid. 2 months rent is missing...
                        05-12-2021, 22:01 PM
                      • Reply to Accelerated possession order
                        by Hudson01
                        Unless the tenant has dependent children, some, or all with a disability, and some other form of vulnerability for her/him self..... they will be in a crummy emergency accommodation flea pit or a dumpy flat in a place resembling the film set of '' Escape from New York ''. They are deluded.
                        05-12-2021, 20:36 PM
                      • Accelerated possession order
                        by Pariah81
                        A tenant has refused to leave the property at the end of her tenancy and has now asked to be evicted as in her words 'that will make her eligible for a council house'.

                        I am sending an accelerated possession order through the courts but whilst completed the forms noticed two apparent errors...
                        05-12-2021, 18:12 PM
                      • Reply to Accelerated possession order
                        by theartfullodger
                        Thatcher's 1988 housing act makes it clear tenant does not have to leave at end of fixed term

                        Why help tenant take a council property from a more deserving case? I'd decline to serve s21. S8 if possible... (was she ever late with rent?)
                        05-12-2021, 19:17 PM
                      • Reply to Accelerated possession order
                        by Pariah81
                        Ok so it looks like the section 21 notice is invalid as a result of this error. The deposit scheme was not in place at the time of the notice.

                        Apparently the deposit has to be returned in full....
                        05-12-2021, 18:35 PM
                      • Reply to Dogs
                        by ash72
                        The good thing is they have asked you prior to getting one, so the decision is yours. If you do decide then I would suggest you increase rent to compensate for your loss in the future.
                        05-12-2021, 17:21 PM
                      • Reply to Dogs
                        by jpkeates
                        I wouldn't, but it does depend on what type of dog.
                        You should assume your carpets will all need replacing.
                        05-12-2021, 16:21 PM
                      • Reply to STA, Section 8 and Court delays/Christmas
                        by jpkeates
                        Assuming it's an AST (STA's are Scottish)...
                        You don't have to renew the tenancy, just let it become periodic.
                        And, you're right, don't renew it.

                        To repossess, you'll either have to attend court or pay a solicitor to do so on your behalf.

                        If the tenant doesn't owe...
                        05-12-2021, 16:13 PM
                      Working...
                      X