Forum Home Search Login Register
+  Landlord Forum
|-+  General Category
| |-+  Landlord Advice & Help
| | |-+  Dispute on Deposit

Dispute on Deposit

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Dispute on Deposit  (Read 120 times)
Newbie
Posts: 11

I like property

« on: June 19, 2022, 08:48:01 PM »

My tenants have moved out as per my section 21 request.  There is quite a bit of damage which will probably take all the deposit.  They are not happy with this and have let me know.  They have said that they paid 25 a month extra to have a dog in the last few months and this needs to be deducted from any amount I am claiming.  Has anyone had any experience of this?  The relationship between us has broken down and I think  it will go for adjudication.

Thanks
Full Member
Posts: 225

I like property

« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2022, 10:22:50 PM »

I don't see why paying 25 extra a month for a dog is something you should return.  Sometimes tenants and landlords think they can just make up their own rules.

If you feel it is going to adjudication, simply make sure your individual deductions are fair and you have invoices, quotes and paperwork to support your claim.
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 4466

Abuse Officer

« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2022, 07:52:26 AM »

Usually it is Landlords who are on the receiving-end of Adjudication requests... it's not that often Landlords instigate them (probably because they fear it won't go in their favour).

Many Landlords don't have an understanding (or realistic view) of what they can truly claim for - and often end up being disappointed by concepts like average expected lifetime and depreciation.

What I found interesting here is that your own words state - "They have said that they paid 25 a month extra to have a dog in the last few months..." - and it's almost like you're surprised by this. Either it did, or didn't happen. It's either a fact, or it isn't. But either way, it appears unrelated to the Deposit (and I reckon you can't take extra Deposit for pets anyway - not for some time). So probably best to point this out to them - you cannot have some of the Deposit deduction deducted in lieu of this 25 per month, as it evidently was not Deposit-related. The 25 was increased rent for an additional occupant.

And one Landlord's "quite a bit of damage" is another Landlord's "needs a lick of paint".
Newbie
Posts: 11

I like property

« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2022, 08:07:49 AM »

Thanks for your replies.  Plenty of good advice. The tenants did pay an extra 25 per month for the dog - this is factually correct. They say it was to pay for pet damage along the way, which I disagree with.  It was not an invitation for them to let dog do a lot of damage, which was not reported - discovered at inspection.
Full Member
Posts: 225

I like property

« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2022, 10:32:03 AM »

Was the 25 part of the tenancy agreement? Was it a separate written agreement?

Will be interesting to know what is in writing for the basis of the 25.
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 1551

I like property

« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2022, 11:17:13 AM »

I don't see this has any bearing on the deposit dispute.Hearing things like this really gets my goat.Landlords who allow pets,especially dogs,are trying to behave decently. Tenants who abuse this trust just make it harder for other pet-owners.
Newbie
Posts: 11

I like property

« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2022, 04:35:37 PM »

thanks again everyone.  The 25 wasn't part of the tenancy agreement.  It was a verbal agreement we made about  6 months ago that was later backed up by me confirming by text it was okay for them to have a dog if they paid an extra 25 pm.  I wish I'd never let them.  I'm a dog owner myself so that sort of swayed it.  Trying to do the decent thing etc.  First rent increase I gave them was after 3 years and that was still not the market rate. they left a month before the section 21 date and told me about 3 days beforehand.  I said that they were still required to give a month's notice, but I would waive it, if they put in writing they were relinquishing all rights, which they did.  It hasn't left me much time to organise workers for repairs, but I thought well they will need that month's rent to pay for new place.  Nothing I have done since giving section 21 has been good enough.  I officially am the Bad Landlord! I can't believe how bad it's made me feel and think why bother?

Apologies for the moan.
Newbie
Posts: 7

Deposit dispute veteran

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2022, 01:38:39 PM »

Having just been on the other end of a deposit dispute (i.e. as a tenant contesting damages) I think your position here is probably stronger than you think.

As others have hinted, it is up to you to decide on the deductions in the first instance. If you think you need to take the whole of the deposit, you can do so, provided you give them reasons as to why you have done this (keep in mind that - should it go to adjudication - you can be penalised if you later rely on evidence that you did not show the tenants at first instance...).

If they disagree with the deductions, they will say so, and you can then negotiate with them on those points.

The only way it will go to adjudicaiton is if they push for this. Even then, though, all that will happen is that the case will be reviewed by a third party. For all the one star reviews on Trustpilot about the deposit services being biased towards tenants, I was actually very surprised how generous my adjudicator was towards the landlord's claims. Over 60% were upheld.

Of course, if you can arrive at an agreement before it gets to that stage, that's great. They may also decide to meet you half way as a way of speeding up the process (in my opinion, one of the unfair things about the system is that tenants are often reliant on their deposit - and thus face pressure to accept a low-ball offer). But, unless your claims are totally detached rom reality, I don't see you losing out massively via adjudication.

(For goodness sake, though, do make sure you've followed all the deposit protection stuff which pops up so regularly on this forum. In our case, it proved to be the undoing of the landlord).
Pages: [1]
Print