Getting money back

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

    Getting money back

    Tenant has now left my property with £1600 of damage/remedial work (over & above the deposit-which I have kept).
    I have a forwarding address, and confirmed the T is there.
    No response to my letters so far.
    What is the best way to try & get my debt repaid. ( T is, I believe unemployed)
    Thanks,
    Meg.

    #2
    Was deposit in a scheme?? Was your keeping it agreed with 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


      #3
      Deposit was not in scheme, tenancy started before scheme introduced.
      T in agreement about keeping deposit as also 2 months in rent arrears.
      M

      Comment


        #4
        Please be aware that T may still be able to claim compensation for non-protection (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...rticle/16/made)

        However, your only course of action is the county court. A claim for under £10k will be allocated to the small claims track.

        How much damages (excluding fair wear and tear) are we talking about? After 6 years many things will be life-expired.

        Comment


          #5
          You make a claim at the tenants new address.
          Use the deposit for damages first, and then claim rent due through your claim.

          If the tenant has no money, they will not pay you anything if you win your case or not.
          Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by thesaint View Post
            If the tenant has no money, they will not pay you anything if you win your case or not.
            That is a very valid point - fiver a week at most - unless they win the lottery / get a job / get an inheritance etc etc.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by mgram View Post
              Deposit was not in scheme, tenancy started before scheme introduced.
              To reiterate what's been said already, but it's not that simple anymore. It would have been advisable to have protected the deposit before the Localism Act amendments last year. You are potentially exposed to a non-compliance claim.

              If the tenancy began before the introduction of deposit protection, then it must have been at least six years' long. Even if you succeeded in a county court claim for the cost of T's damage, there would be significant wear and tear to be factored in over several years so you might only be awarded 10-20% of the cost of a repair. It's unlikely to be worth the hassle of claiming, especially if the T has no assets against which to enforce any CCJ you might obtain.

              Comment


                #8
                I checked with DPS about the deposit and was told there was no requirement to have it protected, I checked again last month and was told the same thing. How can I now be exposed to a claim?.
                The damages etc. are over and above fair wear & tear, T has been charged only for 50% of pee stained carpet, everything else is damages. Cost to me is about £2850.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by mgram View Post
                  T has been charged only for 50% of pee stained carpet, everything else is damages.
                  Assuming that was already present at the start of the tenancy (and was ir brand new then?), then unless it's a very posh and long-lasting carpet, then I think you're over-egging it by claiming that your carpet was only halfway through its lifespan. I think you'd be likely to find a court would decide that a carpet should be written off after that length of time.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mgram View Post
                    How can I now be exposed to a claim?.
                    Did you read the legislation I linked to? The area is grey but the Act says that it affects all deposits that existed in 2012, and yours did. I can say murder is legal, it doesn't mean it is.

                    BTW, any redecoration costs included in the damage bill?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Snorkerz,
                      Yes I did read it. I am still unsure as to why this is a grey area, As original post, I twice checked with DPS and the advice I was given was the deposit did not need protecting. The T. was offered the protection last year and declined it. I have this in writing from the T.
                      There was no redecoration cost included in the damage bill as I would have redecorated anyway. The cost was more than I anticipated, as it seems that there has been smoke damage to the property.

                      Eric,
                      Yes the carpet was new and expensive. T was charged for 50% of one (smallest) room. Landlord paid for all other carpeting, underlay, rods, fitting, deep cleaning and parasite treatment.

                      Can I be clear - I have been very generous to the T. regarding charges, due to the fact that until last year T was a good (if messy) occupier, and has unfortunately gone off the rails a bit.
                      What galls me is that the all of the damage was avoidable. T. has agreed responsibility.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by mgram View Post
                        I twice checked with DPS and the advice I was given was the deposit did not need protecting
                        But when, exactly (as has been discussed, the law changed recently, and so would any DPS advice).
                        The T. was offered the protection last year and declined it.
                        Why did you offer protection? I don't think that the tenant turning it down helps any if any legislation hasn't been complied with. To continue Snorkerz' analogy, murder still isn't legal even if you have the written permission of the victim.

                        As to whether it's worth chasing up your debt - obviously whatever you do will involve you in more hassle, time and costs before you get any return - if indeed, you get anything given he's unemployed. You need to make the judgement as to whether it's worth it. Is he likely to be in work again in the future, or is he long-term unemployed? If you got a CCJ registered against him, you have a good few years (6 or 7?) to go after him, eg with an attachment of earnings order, if he gets a job in the future.

                        But the main thing is that you need to be 100% clear that you haven't screwed up big-time over the deposit protection regs, because if you have done so, and then go after this guy for money, you may get bitten very hard on the backside for your trouble.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I understand that you believe everything is fine, and indeed it may be. However the people you have spoken to at DPS are not legally qualified - they are reading from a pre-prepared script. If you want hard and reliable legal advice, you need to get it from a solicitor or similar.

                          The issue of deposit protection for pre-2007 deposits is not clear and there has been no case-law yet, however, as I have already stated, the legislation does imply (if not directly state) that all deposits in existence at the commencement of the 2011 Localism Act changes are affected. All deposits.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I last checked with the DPS on August 23rd 2013.
                            I offered protection because I had other tenants deposits lodged there.

                            And how to be 100% sure?. It seems to be a grey area, and the DPS staff (I have name & contact details of the person I spoke to), said it was not required.

                            T is currently unemployed, but employable. Still driving VW, with tax renewed until Sept 2014, so can afford to run a car.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Car may be motorbility - ie not theirs! However, if it is theirs, a successful court claim may result in you being able to have it seized to pay off the debt. If car is under 3 years old and the tax disk has a price of £0.00 on it, it is almost certainly motorbility.

                              How to be 100% sure - if we knew then that's what we'd tell you. You can't be sure until the tenant takes you to court and a judge makes a decision. And the next landlord will have to go through the same process until one day the mater is appealed to the senior courts where a precedent can be set (or alternatively, the legislators amend the legislation to be clearer - like that will happen!).

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X