DPS arbitration, will I win?

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

  • dmk1198
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    To be fair, I don't think it's the agent's fault entirely - unless they are the party trying to make the claims.


    The tenant fitted a tv bracket, caused a loss and compensated the landlord for it.

    The subletting fees are a loss and the landlord has been compensated for it.


    The tenant has complensated the landlord for their loss beyond fair wear and tear (plus the radiator repair), which seems a sensible outcome.
    The tenant has done nothing thru choice
    ADR gave me money to repair TV wall bracket damage only
    Other sum goes to block Mgmt for their time dealing with airbnb tenants mess

    Leave a comment:


  • dmk1198
    replied
    Originally posted by Stef Cooke View Post
    That certainly is a tale of woefully inadequate agent actions!

    Be prepared to be told to pay him for the repairs he undertook... and to have him chase up the overpayment issue too!!
    He wouldn't have the brass cheek surely!?

    Leave a comment:


  • dmk1198
    replied
    Originally posted by Notyetagain View Post
    I see your point jpkeates, OP did state in one of his first post that he told the tenant that he needed to go when he found a new tenant and it is only when he found the family leaving there that he said to go right away, so really, he could have chosen to continue looking for a new tenant and only asked him to then. He was lucky he got away without giving notice.
    I did this and he kept sub letting! Couldn't trust him once I found this out
    Thank **** he agreed to go easily thou
    Rent was £2700 pcm

    Leave a comment:


  • dmk1198
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    I wonder if o/p's rent was set crazily high, and that the only way tenant could afford it was to sublet rooms? In that case, I guess the adjudicator has a point.

    I'm almost coming to the view that the agent was 'in on the scam'.
    Crazy talk lol tenant was scam artiste,knew he worked mostly in Germany,used us to rent out on airbnb for £400 anite!

    Leave a comment:


  • dmk1198
    replied
    Yes I'll never let a property without 3rd party check in and check out again!

    Leave a comment:


  • dmk1198
    replied
    I'm the agent
    My friend the owner
    It's a two bed £2m gaff in centre of Soho
    The naughty tenant asked for three years lease and offered £130 pcm over asking,he knew what he was doing and has probably done this before
    Rents have come down
    We didn't want it empty
    Had ten viewing through right move,all {Mod - drop the offensive language} who couldn't pass referencing
    We took the £400 pcm less to attract a great tenant

    Leave a comment:


  • Notyetagain
    replied
    I see your point jpkeates, OP did state in one of his first post that he told the tenant that he needed to go when he found a new tenant and it is only when he found the family leaving there that he said to go right away, so really, he could have chosen to continue looking for a new tenant and only asked him to then. He was lucky he got away without giving notice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stef Cooke
    replied
    Obviously for me the jump out stuff was about the lack of information at inventory check in and out.

    Then again, I just did a check out for a LL and the inventory he gave me was... wait for it... written on a single A5 piece of paper, one side written on, no signatures and a separate CD of pictures with no visible date. That is everything the various agencies say they do NOT want!

    He will take his T to arbitration, despite my having told him his has absolutely no evidence of loss! And he begrudged my bill!!

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    £400 does seem like a big reduction.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    I wonder if o/p's rent was set crazily high, and that the only way tenant could afford it was to sublet rooms? In that case, I guess the adjudicator has a point.

    I'm almost coming to the view that the agent was 'in on the scam'.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Loss of rent is almost impossible to claim in real life, so the choice of renting at a lower rate or holding out for the full rent is probably academic.
    The landlord and tenant ended the tenancy, and the tenant isn't responsible for what the landlord does next with the property.

    In theory, if a property was left in a completely unlettable state because of the tenant's actions or negligence, a landlord might have a claim.
    Periods without a tenant are a normal part of letting property, and you'd have to show that there was a specific and greater than normal loss that the tenant could have reasonable foreseen and that the loss arose from something the tenant did or didn't do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Notyetagain
    replied
    The outcome does sound reasonable from the information that was provided to them. LL and tenants often forget that adjudicators have nothing but what it's front of them to make a decision, so if all they have a unclear picture, showing what could be mould but could also be something else, they are not going to assume that it is, let alone that it was caused by the tenant. The key thing to remember is that the onus is on the LL to evidence why they should be entitled to some of the deposit amount.

    The bit that surprised me though was the rationale used to not grant loss of rent. They state that they agreed on a monthly rental of £400 as evidence that they wanted to rent quickly and therefore a loss that they accepted, in essence. However, it seems that a similar argument would have been used with OP had taken the alternative route of not accepting any tenant not prepared to pay the same amount. They would then have been accused of holding the process of renting the property again and therefore it was their own doing for having loss income. I think the adjudicator made assumptions on intentions there that unfunded and if anything should have led to the opposite outcome, ie. OP agreed to rent again asap despite losing out financially long term and therefore it was right that they should have been compensated for a level of loss income.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    To be fair, I don't think it's the agent's fault entirely - unless they are the party trying to make the claims.

    The floor appears to have been damaged when the tenant moved in and/or then further damaged by a leaking radiator (which the tenant repaired in a timely manner)
    So that claim fails regardless of what the agent supplies as evidence.
    And, given that the tenant has decent images taken when they moved in and out, even if the agent had their own versions, they'd only confirm what the tenant is claiming anyway.

    The fob was the agent's fault - they originally made the wrong claim and can't explain the loss.
    So that's down to the agent.

    The tenant fitted a tv bracket, caused a loss and compensated the landlord for it.

    The subletting fees are a loss and the landlord has been compensated for it.

    The claim for lost rent and re-lettting costs was never viable - the costs weren't the fault of the tenant, and just arose as they would have done anyway.

    The tenant has complensated the landlord for their loss beyond fair wear and tear (plus the radiator repair), which seems a sensible outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stef Cooke
    replied
    That certainly is a tale of woefully inadequate agent actions!

    Be prepared to be told to pay him for the repairs he undertook... and to have him chase up the overpayment issue too!!

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Sounds like it's mostly your agent's fault.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X