landlord trying to claim damages after return of deposit

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

    landlord trying to claim damages after return of deposit

    T left property on XXXX, despite request to L agent, no check out carried out. (full inventory taken at check in) UK AST

    E-mail recieved from L agent 7 days later confirming Agent and L are happy with condition on the property,

    Deposit returned in full

    after a further 7 days T receives e-mail from agent claiming unspecified damages

    I would have thought T liability ends when e-mail recieved stating L is happy with property, and deposit is returned

    any thoughts ?

    #2
    There is nothing to prevent the landlord sueing for damages etc. HOWEVER, he would have to prove the damages to the satisfaction of the court. Obviously, we have no idea what evidence he might use (you would know 14 days before the hearing) but the email the agent (who is legally the landlords representative) sent you would certainly help to dilute any evidence he presented.

    Was an inventory produced/signed at the start of the tenancy?

    Comment


      #3
      As stated above, the email received to state LA and L are happy with the property is huge evidence. They would need to show what the damages are, prove that they were not able to see them at the time of the final inspection and why they couldnt see them. They would also have to prove that they were not there at the beginning of the tenancy.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post

        Was an inventory produced/signed at the start of the tenancy?


        yes inventory was produced and signed,

        The real annoyance for me is that the property is listed for sale, and i doubt any work would really be undertaken, especially if the property sells quickly.

        G

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by gunner View Post
          The real annoyance for me is that the property is listed for sale, and i doubt any work would really be undertaken, especially if the property sells quickly.
          That's not the issue. IF you have caused damage beyond normal wear and tear, the landlord is entitled to compensation for the loss of value that that damage has caused. For instance, if you put cigarette burns in a 5 year old carpet, he would be entitled to the cost of repair (if repairable) or the value that he has lost. He has already had 5 years use out of the carpet, so if the carpet has a life expectancy of 7 years, he has only lost 2 years worth - 2/7ths. Therefore, you would owe £200 on a £700 carpet. The key difference is that you are compensating the landlord for his LOSS, not paying him to replace something. It is a subtle difference.

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X