Protecting Deposit After Tenant Has Moved Out - Naive Landlord Error

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Protecting Deposit After Tenant Has Moved Out - Naive Landlord Error

    A landlord friend who has just go into the property game has had his first tenant's move out. Despite a number of reminders from me, he did not protect their deposit. Now that his tenants have moved out, he has had to retain a fair amount of their deposit for damage they caused to the property.

    The tenants are contesting the charges and he is now worried about not having protected their deposit.

    Would it be too late for him to protect the deposit now that they have moved out and after he has advised them (in writing) of the various charges for damage?

    I would like to tell him "I warned you", but he's a good guy with a heart in the right place, so I want to help him out.

    If the tenancy has lawfully ended, then your friend has nothing to fear in terms of a claim by the tenant for not protecting the deposit. A court of appeal judgment earlier this year established that the T has no claim after the tenancy has ended.*

    * Though it appears that the law is going to be changed fairly shortly, albeit I doubt the changes would be applied retrospectively.


      Oh, that's even news to my ears! Do you have any more information as to where this law is written please westminster?

      And when you say "lawfully ended", do you mean that the AST has finished (which it has)?

      EDIT: A quick google search brought this up. Looks like he has nothing to worry about then. I shall give the worrying bugger a quick call now and hope he treats this as a lesson for the future .


        The tenants could still sue for the return of their deposit. Could your friend successfully counterclaim for the damages he alleges - ie does he have proof that any 'damaged' item was not damaged at the start of the tenancy, and if he has that proof, has he charged the tenants an appropriate amount to take into account 'fair wear and tear'?


          Originally posted by EViS View Post
          Oh, that's even news to my ears! Do you have any more information as to where this law is written please westminster?
          You answered this yourself with your edit - Gladehurst v Hashemi.

          And when you say "lawfully ended", do you mean that the AST has finished (which it has)?
          I mean ended in one of the various lawful ways a tenancy may end, such as a T vacating at fixed term expiry, or serving notice to quit under a break clause or during a periodic tenancy; or a mutually agreed surrender; or LL obtaining and executing a possession order.

          If the tenancy were not lawfully ended (e.g. LL illegally evicted the T) then the T would still have a claim for deposit non-compliance even after the tenancy had 'ended'.


          Latest Activity


          • Reply to Annex
            by Dreamingofsea
            I think you have said above you only want a lodger. In this case with the layout described it is highly unlikely to be ruled one in a court. I think it would therefore be very unwise to issue a lodger s agreement to a tenant because say down the line you want to evict the tenant and they go to seek...
            18-09-2021, 17:14 PM
          • Annex
            by Lammas13
            I have a self contained annex, it has kitchen, shower, toilet and own entrance from the alleyway.
            when we bought our house it was already there. It was build with proper planning permission.
            How do I go about renting it out. Washing machine would have to be shares in the main house. ...
            15-09-2021, 17:44 PM
          • Reply to Annex
            by Dreamingofsea
            As said above - This is a grey area. Probably It can not be a lodger s agreement just sharing a washing machine .It could be as Artful said common tenancy a non-assured short hold (little advantage since you have to evict through a court possession order and there is no accelerated process and you...
            18-09-2021, 17:02 PM
          • Reply to Typical lifetime of carpets
            by royw
            I use cheap carpet over good underlay everywhere.
            18-09-2021, 16:57 PM
          • Typical lifetime of carpets
            by davett
            I've done some searching and I see people asserting that the typical lifetime of a carpet is between 5 and 7 years. My question is, has this been established in court or is it just general knowledge?...
            17-09-2021, 13:11 PM
          • Reply to Tenant references are a joke.
            by Moderator2

            Just post a new thread, I’ll lock this one for now, then remove it when the new thread gets going.

            Just to be clear (to everyone), here are some reasons why threads with names are edited or deleted.
            1. It can (and has) lead to legal action against forum members and/or
            18-09-2021, 15:01 PM
          • Tenant references are a joke.
            by Hooper
            I made two separate requests (one direct and one through a referencing company) for a landlord / agent reference for the same tenant at the same address.

            I got two replies two days apart.

            The first said they had always paid within 7 days of the payment date and that there had...
            17-09-2021, 12:03 PM
          • Reply to Typical lifetime of carpets
            by jpkeates
            The underlay is the key.
            At home I use cheap carpet (because of pets) over good underlay.
            18-09-2021, 14:45 PM
          • Reply to Typical lifetime of carpets
            by jpucng62
            Let’s be honest, most tenants don’t look after carpets as well as a homeowner. There is no point putting a quality in a rental when you can’t be sure how it will be looked after - a burn or a coffee / wine stain will ruin a decent carpet as well as a cheap one. I go for a bleach cleanable, mid...
            18-09-2021, 14:39 PM
          • Reply to MCOL & PCOL
            by jpkeates
            There was nothing about a default in the post I was responding to.
            The post said that there had been a hearing, so if there was a default, it would have to be some kind of procedural issue.
            If you don't turn up to defend a claim, there has to have been some kind of error in notification...
            18-09-2021, 13:40 PM