My Deposits - Implications if LL or T turns down adjudication?

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

    My Deposits - Implications if LL or T turns down adjudication?

    I have used the My|Deposits adjudication before, with mixed results.

    All my flats are rented on separate AST's, with Common Licence for the common/shared areas.

    The flats are pretty much fully furnished right down to cutlery, plates, toaster etc.. (rather than just lounge and bedroom furniture).

    The one time I went to adjudication I provided a ton of evidence. The T zero. Roughly £850 damages was contested by the T. The ruling by the adjudicator sided with my evidence for the majority of it, about £600. All of it for damages in his room.

    The rest he would not award, these were damages to things that were in the kitchen and common areas, even though these were split equally between the T's.

    My take on it was the adjudicator would not allow anything damaged in the common areas. Which I think is unfair given the Common Licence is in place and the T's do equally use the TV, utensils, plates, glasses etc.. located in the common areas.


    I have a potential dispute with another T, and if either of us don't agree to use My|Deposits' adjudication, what happens from there?

    What if I don't take him to court. What if he doesn't either? -- Does My|Deposits just hold onto it or give it back to the T?

    On the flip side what happens if I take it to court, what the process and likely series of events and potential outcomes and costs involved, hearings, physical appearances in court?

    Would like to hear from LL's (or T's) who have turned down adjudication.

    Thanks for any information, advice, suggestions/tips you may have.

    #2
    Thoughts/suggestions anyone?

    Comment


      #3
      I have never been a 'my deposits' customer but surely first place to look is in their 'terms and conditions'. What does that say about your situation?



      Freedom at the point of zero............

      Comment


        #4
        My understanding, from a couple of people I know of who have done this, is that the judges seem to take a dim view of people who have not used the adjudication process available through the deposit scheme operators.
        My advice is not based on formal legal training but experience gained in 20+ years in the letting industry.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by sparkie View Post
          I have a potential dispute with another T, and if either of us don't agree to use My|Deposits' adjudication, what happens from there?

          What if I don't take him to court. What if he doesn't either? -- Does My|Deposits just hold onto it or give it back to the T?
          So basically no-one wants the money back. What's the logic in this (hypothetical I hope) scenario?

          Comment


            #6
            If T does not notify scheme that deposit is in dispute, after a certain time LL can claim it. IMO

            Comment


              #7
              I think the main issue is that you cannot attribute damage/loss in the communial areas to one specific T as they are shared by all the Ts collectively. He did it, no she did it, no it was the other guy's uncle that visited.

              IMO I don't think you would get a different outcome via courts than ADR but I'm not legally trained.
              I'm a good tenant with great landlords
              I'm also a living, breathing, fully cooked female.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Brb View Post
                I think the main issue is that you cannot attribute damage/loss in the communial areas to one specific T as they are shared by all the Ts collectively. He did it, no she did it, no it was the other guy's uncle that visited.
                I think this is spot on. It was the subject of a long debate we had in (I think) the HMO forum about the unfairness of splitting the utility bills between tenants on separate ASTs.Same principle -you cannot charge someone for damage in an area not demised to them personally. (This is why joint tenancies are preferable, in my view).

                All OP can do is take the cost of damage to toaster, etc., on the chin, in the knowledge than separate ASTs are more lucrative than one joint one and thus generate extra revenue to cover cost of damage to communal area.

                I fought a long battle last year with the sharky property company who owned my daughter's student flat (one of 50 separate flats in same block).They were trying to charge each tenant of each flat - on average 3 tenants per flat - £1.00 for the replacement of one £9.00 IKEA picture in the communal hallway which they claimed had disappeared. They lost, not because £150 is a greedy amount to charge for a £9.00picture, but because it could not be proved who had removed it. It could have been the company themselves, as they had access to the stairway.

                I'm not suggesting for a minute that sparkie is trying to do profit in this way, but the principle is similar: you can only charge individual Ts in HMOs for things in areas over which they were indiviudally responsible, i.e. their rooms.
                'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                  I think this is spot on. It was the subject of a long debate we had in (I think) the HMO forum about the unfairness of splitting the utility bills between tenants on separate ASTs.Same principle -you cannot charge someone for damage in an area not demised to them personally. (This is why joint tenancies are preferable, in my view).

                  All OP can do is take the cost of damage to toaster, etc., on the chin, in the knowledge than separate ASTs are more lucrative than one joint one and thus generate extra revenue to cover cost of damage to communal area.

                  I'm not suggesting for a minute that sparkie is trying to do profit in this way, but the principle is similar: you can only charge individual Ts in HMOs for things in areas over which they were indiviudally responsible, i.e. their rooms.

                  How about common licenses that deal with items in shared areas. Surely charging an equal split where no one owns up is fair and reasonable since it is a houseshare after all.

                  Otherwise the T's could potentially trash the common areas and everything in it and just get away with it? I can't see a judge who is fair and sensible about this would not attribute some responsibility for damages onto the T's.

                  My flat is not part of a large block of flats. And the items damaged/broken are all inside the flat and not in a shared communal hallway or access way.

                  My tenants have the bills and utilities in their names, and they split the cost of the bills as they come in. They don't argue about who uses more than someone else. Similarly if something in the common areas is damaged T's should bear the responsibility equally to compensate for loss/damages.

                  A toaster is nothing, £10? -- but I have 46" TV screens in my flats which are over £1200 so this not a cheap item.

                  So how do all the LL's who operate on individual AST's handle this? -- do they just not furnish anything expensive in the common areas??

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If your Ts are reaosnable people and they all agree to the arrangement and treat your the things/facilities you provide with respect, you will not have a problem, I agree. It is very unlikley that all th Ts will collectively trash your property when they are uncnnected to each other. They may do it (collectively) by negligence, I suppose. But it only takes one nutter to upset the apple cart as it were. I'm just relaying what the legal position might be (as outlined I think by Lawcruncher), if push came to shove.

                    I agree that if they have signed an explicit househare agreement that any damage done by any of them is to be paid for by all of them jointly, you may be able to persuade a judge. But no T in their right mind would sign such an agreement (would you - with people you do not know from Adam?) and it may well be an unfair term.
                    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Understand what you're saying re legal position.. I wonder if anyone has a link to a case setting precedent or information that cover this in detail so there is more clarity.

                      I have always had the Common Licence and AST signed and returned back from all my T's without a single question asked about shared responsibility.

                      This is what I have in my Common Licence on the subject:


                      5. Damages & Breakages

                      i. Any damages or breakages to items (or found missing), fittings, equipment or property will be replaced, like for like. Replacement costs will be split equally between tenants.


                      ______________________________


                      I know there are quite a few LL's on here that rent out on individual AST's - would love to hear how they handle this issue, any of you willing to share?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by sparkie View Post
                        Understand what you're saying re legal position.. I wonder if anyone has a link to a case setting precedent or information that cover this in detail so there is more clarity.

                        I have always had the Common Licence and AST signed and returned back from all my T's without a single question asked about shared responsibility.
                        What is this 'common licence' stuff? If the tenant is an AST tenant, then that's all he is, AFAIK - he's not a licencee as well.

                        i. Any damages or breakages to items (or found missing), fittings, equipment or property will be replaced, like for like. Replacement costs will be split equally between tenants.
                        How is this going to work if tenants are moving in and out at random times? How do you prove original condition (inventory check every time there's a changeover?) and how do you justify an equal split if one T has lived there for five years and another for six months?

                        A toaster is nothing, £10? -- but I have 46" TV screens in my flats which are over £1200 so this not a cheap item.

                        So how do all the LL's who operate on individual AST's handle this? -- do they just not furnish anything expensive in the common areas??
                        I would imagine that is the best solution, or raise the rents to cover damage to items in the communal areas.

                        Comment

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X