UK Landlord Forum / Life

 

Could you be in a pickle?

The Landlord and you discussed this 'opting-out' of Deposit legislation, and he just took two payments at the beginning (one being the amount a Deposit might be) and he explained to you how this was in your best interests?

You are more worried if there's something you might be charged for? How? There's no Deposit. He'd have to take you to Court... and then you could take him to Court.

We discussed it and agreed that the 880 was for first month and last month rent but this agreement is not outlined on the tenancy agreement. I'm asking where I stand legally if the landlord decided to be difficult and say that I still owe him rent. I can just refuse but he could then take me to court and it's obvious to everyone that the 880 was for two months rent and not the moving in payment for just the first month but as the payments part of the tenancy doesn't actually specify this I would like to know where I stand legally.

No. Your Landlord has really taken a Deposit, right?

But, if you're happy with the Landlord using tricks to circumvent Deposit legislation don't worry about anything until it happens. If things get tricky come back and tell us what actually happened. Don't pre-empt or invent problems. Don't agree to anything you're not happy with.

There is a section in the tenancy agreement where the landlord can tick a box to confirm if a deposit has or has not been taken so I wouldn't describe that as a trick. I'm asking for advice on a potential problem so I can be more prepared for it which I've seen in other threads so I'm not sure what you mean by telling me to come back when the problem has started. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough but I paid my landlord the rent x two when I moved in but the contract does not specify this so I'm asking from a legal standpoint. If I was standing in front of Judge Judy I can see her telling me she believes what I'm saying but can only go by what is on the contract and there is no mention in the contract that half of the 880 was to be used as the last months rent.

The problem hasn't occurred. Why worry about it until it occurs? No point in wasting your time. Everything might go smoothly. You've already wasted too much time thinking about something that hasn't happened, yet. You use the correct word "potential". When it's "actual" come back.

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 23, 2020, 09:25:24 AM
The problem hasn't occurred. Why worry about it until it occurs?

Because, like a lot of posts on these forums, people ask for advice about something that might happen so they are better prepare or just because they are curious I'm not worried I'm just casually asking for advice or opinions. Saying forget about it and come back if it happens is flippant.

Appreciate the flippancy. Your problem might never come to pass.

Your initial post is too long for such a potential issue. I may be the only person to have read it. Concise and precise wins the day.

Fair enough and I take on board the flippancy, it was a tad War & Peace wall of text but I was trying to include all the information from the outset I'm just annoyed with my landlord because I've played by the rules for the last few years but they don't seem to think they need to. I guess the moral of the story is if you're looking for legal advice ask on a legal forum.

The moral of the story is don't worry about problems until they exist.

Quote from: Chopin on January 25, 2020, 01:17:55 AM
I'm just annoyed with my landlord because I've played by the rules for the last few years but they don't seem to think they need to.

I think this is why Hippogriff is suggesting that you wait and see what happens because, from a legal point of view, your landlord is skating on fairly thin ice:

Back in the mists of time, when the requirement to protect deposits with an approved scheme came in, some landlord came up with a wizard wheeze whereby, instead of taking a deposit, they'd just take the last month's rent upfront. It meant they'd still have cover if the tenant stopped paying the rent but they wouldn't need to protect it. I've always struggled to see the point: protecting the deposit properly isn't hard or costly and doing the "rent up front" trick means you've got nothing to claim damages out of, plus it might not be enough for the last month of a longer tenancy. Anyway, that's what your landlord appears to be doing.

As a way of avoiding the penalties attached to the deposit protection legislation it just about works but only if the landlord is very careful not to do anything "deposit-like" with that last month's rent. The ice is thin here. If he expects you to pay the last month's rent, and only then gives you the "advance rent" back and, particularly if he deducts so much as the cost of a light bulb* from it, then, no matter what he might have chosen to call it, a deposit it do be. Crack. Splash. Glug.

The penalty for failing to protect the deposit is 1-3 x the value of the deposit per tenancy, so there could be a pickle ... but it won't be you that's in it.


*N.B. This is not an incitement to nick the light bulbs.

Quote from: Simon Pambin on January 25, 2020, 12:16:03 PM

Quote from: Chopin on January 25, 2020, 01:17:55 AM
I'm just annoyed with my landlord because I've played by the rules for the last few years but they don't seem to think they need to.

I think this is why Hippogriff is suggesting that you wait and see what happens because, from a legal point of view, your landlord is skating on fairly thin ice:

Back in the mists of time, when the requirement to protect deposits with an approved scheme came in, some landlord came up with a wizard wheeze whereby, instead of taking a deposit, they'd just take the last month's rent upfront. It meant they'd still have cover if the tenant stopped paying the rent but they wouldn't need to protect it. I've always struggled to see the point: protecting the deposit properly isn't hard or costly and doing the "rent up front" trick means you've got nothing to claim damages out of, plus it might not be enough for the last month of a longer tenancy. Anyway, that's what your landlord appears to be doing.

As a way of avoiding the penalties attached to the deposit protection legislation it just about works but only if the landlord is very careful not to do anything "deposit-like" with that last month's rent. The ice is thin here. If he expects you to pay the last month's rent, and only then gives you the "advance rent" back and, particularly if he deducts so much as the cost of a light bulb* from it, then, no matter what he might have chosen to call it, a deposit it do be. Crack. Splash. Glug.

The penalty for failing to protect the deposit is 1-3 x the value of the deposit per tenancy, so there could be a pickle ... but it won't be you that's in it.


*N.B. This is not an incitement to nick the light bulbs.

Thanks for your reply and your explanation makes waiting and seeing make more sense. After calming down from the last unauthorised entry my landlord made I'm no longer looking to move and letting agents are asking for 5 x the rent in damage deposit so I couldn't afford to. I've had a good relationship with my landlord but last October he entered my flat with a insulation surveyor without even telling me and I only noticed when I got home from work and noticed doors had been opened. I called him and it took a while to get it out of him that he had let himself in. The worst part was he had left the door unlocked. It's like having Mr. Magoo for a landlord.

Quote from: Chopin on January 26, 2020, 11:00:00 PM...and letting agents are asking for 5 x the rent in damage deposit so I couldn't afford to.

I'm genuinely struggling with this... this almost gleeful and accepting gullibility being demonstrated so openly. Is it a wind-up or am I missing the point?

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 26, 2020, 11:36:07 PM

Quote from: Chopin on January 26, 2020, 11:00:00 PM...and letting agents are asking for 5 x the rent in damage deposit so I couldn't afford to.

I'm genuinely struggling with this... this almost gleeful and accepting gullibility being demonstrated so openly. Is it a wind-up or am I missing the point?

What? You are the most arrogant 'global administrator' I have ever encountered.

Nice, and thanks, but I suspect you're a time-wasting troll (or just an imbecile). I'm going to leave it to someone with more positivity and patience, than I could ever muster, to deal with you. I'll (try to) just observe. Let's see if anyone steps-up...

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 24, 2020, 07:23:23 AM
Your initial post is too long for such a potential issue. I may be the only person to have read it.

Well, I skim read all of it, does that count?

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 27, 2020, 05:50:27 AM
I'm going to leave it to someone with more positivity and patience, than I could ever muster, to deal with you. I'll (try to) just observe. Let's see if anyone steps-up...

Erm... err... what...... nope, nope, not me either.

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 27, 2020, 05:50:27 AM
Nice, and thanks, but I suspect you're a time-wasting troll (or just an imbecile). I'm going to leave it to someone with more positivity and patience, than I could ever muster, to deal with you. I'll (try to) just observe. Let's see if anyone steps-up...

Not at all I just expect people to give direct answers especially when they are a moderator.

As a moderator you should have been concise and given a reason why you have a problem with my post about 5 x the deposit instead of

'genuinely struggling with this'

I have no idea what you mean by this. I'm here looking for advice not ramblings.

Your behaviour is not becoming of a GLOBAL MODERATOR who should not mock and try to embarrass people. Do you not get it? You are rude and moderators should be above that. I've never trolled or flamed a forum so I have a problem when so called mods accuse me of it.

You may need to take the hint that it seems other people, just like me, can somehow sense that you are a black hole of time-wasting..?

I have a spare moment before the real world begins...

You stated here that you wanted to move. But that you were concerned about the fact your Landlord had asked for 2 rent payments up-front at the beginning of this tenancy and you wanted to make sure you did not get shafted at the end of the tenancy. Three forum members have placed input into here - we're kind of incredulous, really, that you appear to be so accepting of this situation. Everyone who rents, and everyone who lets property is well aware of Deposit legislation that has been in place since 2007... and that there has been various tricks and tactics employed by nefarious Landlords over the years to 'avoid' monies taken being seen as a Deposit... why? Because the penalties for Landlords not correctly protecting Deposits are quite severe (and to your benefit). On the face of it, certainly, your Landlord appears to have tried very hard (and has succeeded as - paraphrasing your words, as you've edited-out your original post - you said he'd explained to you why it was in your own interests) to circumvent Deposit protection legislation - this is a bad thing, and it has been proven time after time that it isn't possible... so the original question "Could you be in a pickle?" was implying that no, you're not, your Landlord is! Whatever has been done with this two months of rent, we can see that it is intended as some kind of protection against damage for him - he's not just calling it a Deposit, however, it is very likely it would be used as such - just as you expect. That's not allowed. And it is entirely possible you could take him to Court for taking another 1x rent at the beginning of the tenancy (just like a Landlord might for something we'd all call a Deposit) and seek damages (straight into your pocket)... you seem to have glazed over this... I don't know why, most people's ears prick-up at that point. Whatever your Landlord says that money was intended for... well, it's not really relevant... it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks (like a duck)... so it's probably a Deposit... but - of course - the Landlord doesn't want to call it a Deposit. However, when you advised them (Landlord / Letting Agent) of the intention to move on... they seemed to imply to you that they'd be seeking an amount equal to around 5x the rent for damages you've 'caused'... now, I suspect that's called having your cake and eating it... if you elect to not go with a Deposit in the first place then what are they claiming against? They can't just unilaterally force you to pay this amount... they would need to take your to Court and the burden of proof would be quite tough for them... you can just ignore their demand for 5x the rent in "damage deposit" and tell them that the 'Deposit' that was taken at the beginning of the tenancy (just to set the cat amongst the pigeons) was never protected... and you have checked this, and taken advice (blah, blah, blah) and reckon the Landlord now owes you the original amount back, plus 1x to 3x the amount as a penalty... see how that's responded to... but, nevertheless, you aren't liable for 5x the rent as payment (there's obviously no consideration of fair wear-and-tear I'd wager, or - if so - you are a very messy pup indeed!) and you can effectively ignore that demand and go about your original plan to move on. So... 1) if a Deposit was taken it was not protected and you are due recourse, 2) if a Deposit was not taken then the Landlord cannot claim from it (as it doesn't exist) and the 'request' for 5x rent as a damage deposit is a nonsense... they'd have to take you to Court.

I started writing something, and then re-re-reread that 5 x post. I wonder now if what CHOPIN meant is that they no longer wishes to move now that 1) they have calmed down, and 2) letting agents CHOPIN have visited while looking for a new place is asking "5 x the rent" as a tenancy deposit which CHOPIN couldn't afford. And by "5 x" which I had read as 5 months, CHOPIN means 5 weeks.

Well... if it's the latter latter Chopin is not likely to ever move, as that'll be the minimum likely to be encountered now. But - if he mistakenly thought it was 5 months - and now learns it is 5 weeks (as it must be) he might be very pleased and things might be back on the table. Freedom¡

Quote from: Hippogriff on January 28, 2020, 05:27:13 PM
Well... if it's the latter latter Chopin is not likely to ever move, as that'll be the minimum likely to be encountered now. But - if he mistakenly thought it was 5 months - and now learns it is 5 weeks (as it must be) he might be very pleased and things might be back on the table. Freedom¡

Why would I be unlikely to ever move? Are you making assumptions again

The irony is that you call me an imbecile and then show a complete disregard for paragraph law 

If only you had asked me to clarify you would have realised I meant 5 weeks and not 5 months in advance. I got that wrong but you didn't even bother to check you just dived right in with the insult like any respectful moderator would not do. I even specified it's letting agencies and have made it clear several times prior to that I have a landlord.

You need to be clearer with people because they cannot read your mind.

Tenants who have Letting Agents don't have Landlords? News to me. At least you've calmed down now... and you can focus on your legionella and doorbell chime, as you're staying put. Please don't deliberately waste the time of the forum members again... we aren't here for your amusement (you - specifically you - are here for ours).

You took exception to my first post because I included the word 'pickle' and you took an instant dislike to me. I'm intelligent enough to recognise that. It's why I've stayed to see just how personal you can become and you have belittled me and called me names. You are breaking your own rules. I joined because I had genuine questions about tenancy. Please tell me how I am wasting forum members time.