Deposit deductions after LL sold house

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

    Deposit deductions after LL sold house

    Hello,

    First time poster here, apologies if this has been covered before but I couldn't find anything after searching

    We've just vacated a property, had AST for 6 months which later changed to periodic. LL used a letting agency. LL then announced intention to sell property to new owners who will be resident there and are not becoming landlords themselves.
    LL served us section 21 - everything was done properly.

    We are waiting on our deposit being returned, and on check out the agent found a stain (which we are aware of and responsible for). Normally we wouldn't question anything, but wondered in light of the house sale if deductions for repairs still valid if the property changes ownership and purpose?

    Basically we have no objections paying for repairs if they will actually be carried out under the LLs ownership, but we're not sure that this is the case here. If the LL has relinquished ownership and repairs are unlikely to be completed, where do we stand with this? We know the new owners wished to assume residency as soon after we left as possible.

    many thanks
    Yuki

    #2
    I think that the landlords would find it impossible to prove that they received a lesser price for the property because of the issues. Any deduction from deposit should reflect the diminution in the value of the reversion caused by the damages.
    [I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]

    Comment


      #3
      Deductions from deposits are not dependant on repairs being carried out, they are dependant on the damage you have done. Whoever is your landlord at the end of your tenancy will be entitled to such reimbursement.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
        Deductions from deposits are not dependant on repairs being carried out, they are dependant on the damage you have done.
        However, that is not quite how the deposit scheme adjudicators see things, so if OP disputes any deductions and the claim is settled via ADR, LL may lose if he doesn't have receipts for repairs actually carried out.

        See last download on the list, the official guide for all three schemes: A guide to tenancy deposits, disputes and damages
        http://www.depositprotection.com/doc...processes.aspx

        In section 4. it says:

        Invoices, receipts, estimates and quotations

        These are necessary to illustrate any costs incurred in respect of repair/replacementwork being carried out. This evidence should be itemised fully, to enable an accurate breakdown of the costs being charged for each type of work undertaken. Only receipts or invoices corresponding to claims being made against the deposit are necessary. If these cannot be provided, an explanation should be provided indicating why this evidence is not available. Estimates and quotations will not be afforded the same weight as invoices or receipts as they do not demonstrate a cost actually incurred; however they are useful in providing an indication of the extent of charges necessary to rectify any damage or deterioration.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by westminster View Post
          However, that is not quite how the deposit scheme adjudicators see things, so if OP disputes any deductions and the claim is settled via ADR, LL may lose if he doesn't have receipts for repairs actually carried out.

          See last download on the list, the official guide for all three schemes: A guide to tenancy deposits, disputes and damages
          http://www.depositprotection.com/doc...processes.aspx

          In section 4. it says:

          Invoices, receipts, estimates and quotations

          These are necessary to illustrate any costs incurred in respect of repair/replacementwork being carried out. This evidence should be itemised fully, to enable an accurate breakdown of the costs being charged for each type of work undertaken. Only receipts or invoices corresponding to claims being made against the deposit are necessary. If these cannot be provided, an explanation should be provided indicating why this evidence is not available. Estimates and quotations will not be afforded the same weight as invoices or receipts as they do not demonstrate a cost actually incurred; however they are useful in providing an indication of the extent of charges necessary to rectify any damage or deterioration.
          You are, of course, quite right - I had forgotten this (relatively recent?) publicaion.

          However, I believe the principle I describe is the 'legal' stance, and would be valid in court?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
            Deductions from deposits are not dependant on repairs being carried out, they are dependant on the damage you have done. Whoever is your landlord at the end of your tenancy will be entitled to such reimbursement.
            In my opinion in this instance a deduction could ONLY be justified if the work was done. If the current LL was returned the property, claimed damages and then immediately sold the property without rectifying it, I cannot see that any loss has been suffered and the purchaser would have not offered any more for part worn carpets than they would have done for part worn carpets with a stain..

            In my opinion without doing said work, there is no provable diminution.
            [I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
              You are, of course, quite right - I had forgotten this (relatively recent?) publicaion.
              May 2011

              However, I believe the principle I describe is the 'legal' stance, and would be valid in court?
              Yes, I think so, especially if there's an intention to carry out the repair (it needn't necessarily be immediate IMO). I think lawcruncher disagrees, however. We had a discussion (which I cannot find) about the schemes' guidance a few weeks back but I don't think we reached an agreement on this point.

              My view is that something may be damaged but there could be various valid reasons why it may make sense to defer carrying out the repair; yet LL has still suffered a loss.

              Originally posted by MrJohnnyB View Post
              I think that the landlords would find it impossible to prove that they received a lesser price for the property because of the issues. Any deduction from deposit should reflect the diminution in the value of the reversion caused by the damages.
              ...under s.18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927? I think I'd agree in this particular situation, with LL selling immediately after the tenancy ended. But generally, LLs don't have to carry out s.18(1) valuations in order to make a claim for damage, do they?

              Comment


                #8
                Thanks for the replies everyone, I know it's an unusual one. Spoke with the agent today who seemed to think that the new owners were looking to complete this coming Friday so there really isn't much time to play with. The agent themselves seemed to be a bit non-plussed as to where any payment would go.

                we've not been nightmare tenants or anything - we fully accept that we accidentally caused damage (pot plant stain from container which had crack in base - did not discover it until we moved the pot on the day we moved out!)
                but we do want to know where our money would go.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Your deposit damages payment will go to ex LL as you have vacated & he was still the owner/LL when you left. You have not said how much LL is claiming for your damage.
                  To others, carpet remains LL property, he may wish to remove and use elsewhere or promised future owners he will have it cleaned or make a deduction if they are buying carpets etc sep.. A small carpet stain may be removed by prof cleaning. A LL can require a T to pay for Ts damage at any time during T and for some time after. If others feel that in this case T can avoid payment for self-confessed damage, just because the property is being sold, the risk is any out-going T, knowing property being sold imm,can damage said property with impunity. I wonder if more is at stake for OP than a plant pot water stain on a carpet?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mariner View Post
                    I wonder if more is at stake for OP than a plant pot water stain on a carpet?
                    Not sure what you mean, that's was the only thing identified on the check out? So we'll probably be invoiced for a new carpet. Unless you mean that the new owners could sue us? surely not as we have no contractual link with them?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by yuki View Post
                      Not sure what you mean, that's was the only thing identified on the check out? So we'll probably be invoiced for a new carpet.
                      Even if you are liable for the damage, LL would not be entitled to the full replacement cost of the carpet, only a portion, depending on the age/anticipated lifespan of the carpet.

                      Unless you mean that the new owners could sue us? surely not as we have no contractual link with them?
                      If your tenancy has ended, it's nothing to do with the prospective purchasers; it's purely between you and your former landlord.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by mariner View Post
                        To others, carpet remains LL property, he may wish to remove and use elsewhere or promised future owners he will have it cleaned or make a deduction if they are buying carpets etc sep.
                        Valid point. Damage might be to removable items or fittings, and LL may indeed have given an assurance to the purchasers regarding an item or fitting. So even where a LL sells a property immediately post-tenancy, LL may still suffer a proveable loss.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I am in a similar situation so this is interesting. We are disputing some repairs that we feel are wear and tear rather than tenant induced (a bit of mould on some conservatory blinds, some scratches to the kitchen sink). The Landlord has actually sold the property so to me it just seems a bit petty to withhold the deposit and seek the cost of replacements.. especially when they are not ever going to actually install them. It's our first experience of being a tenant and I have to say its left a sour taste.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Dispute deduction through deposit scheme
                            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The landlord shouldn't be asking for the cost of replacements.
                              They are entitled to ask for compensation for the loss of value of their property beyond fair wear and tear.

                              The claim doesn't depend on correcting the loss - often it makes no sense to, because the claim for the loss on the sink wouldn't pay for a new sink and you probably can't remove the scratches.

                              I'm not (personally - and I know I'm a landlord) of the view that scratches on a sink are fair wear and tear, and I'm a bit either way about a bit of mould - if only because at one end of the scale it may have ruined the blind and at the other end it can be wiped off with a cloth.

                              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

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X