UK Landlord Forum / Life

Ok

Flat share, 3 students, all signed up to pay £850 pcm rent by way of a 12 month AST. £1050 deposit paid = £350 each tenant. 8 months in, Tenant 1 wishes to leave, Letting agent asks Tenant 1 to source a replacement occupier and confirms when all check done, a new tenancy can be entered into. all checks done, incoming tenant 4 pays £350 deposit to Tenant 1 at the direction of the letting agent who vacated 2 months previously. now at end of tenancy and it appears no new tenancy was signed by tenants 2,3 and 4. a search of the custodian tenancy deposit scheme provider confirms that the deposit is protected but only in the names of tenants 1,2 and 3. It would appear that the letting agent has failed to notify the deposit scheme of the new tenant's details.

Is this a breach oif Tenant deposit scheme rules ?
Is Tenant 4 liable for dilapidation costs ?
Is Tenant 1 still liable for dilapidation costs ?

Your fingers is pointing at the Tenants... but I would be pointing my finger at the Letting Agent. You are paying them. Surely advice and guidance is a part of this dubious service they are offering you and they must have, surely, given you a way forward, or choices? Anyway, the answer to your question about Tenants is 4... not 1, they left - the Deposit (and its protection) is distinct from the tenancy - Tenant 1 is no longer a party to the tenancy, their name is just on some third party documentation through an admin. error. It would come as a big surprise to Tenant 1 to learn they're liable for some costs after they had left and, especially, after they'd had "all checks done".

Your Agent's approach - having the Tenants exchange Deposit money sounds like an obvious short-cut to me (didn't it to you at the time?).

tenant 4 alleges his deposit is not protected and is threatening S214 proceedings, can I counterclaim off letting agent for directing tenant 4 to pay deposit to tenant 1.

No. Or you'll struggle. It's ultimately the Landlord's responsibility. Shame. Tenant 4 is correct... in that it's certainly not protected properly, which is what matters. At least it's not a massive Deposit.

If these are the same student tenants that you're attempting to screw a grand and a half out of for a bit of cleaning and minor maintenance, it's small wonder that they're casting around for something they can use as a lever against you. Everybody needs to step away from the lawyers and start being reasonable. Give the tenants their deposit back, (less a reasonable deduction for cleaning if you must). Of all the parties in this story, they're the ones least able to afford a stupidly large bill.

The entire property may have been repainted. It seems no-one knows! This Landlord appears to not have his eye on the ball, his finger on the pulse, his ear to the ground...

simon pamblin

I am actually siding with the tenant and querying the letting agent if you care to read the posts in more detail, My ear is to the ground hence the revelation of the letting agents fraudulent actions and frankly incompetence

Yes, I can see that from here but, as far as your erstwhile tenants are concerned, you and your agent are one and the same. Get them out of the equation before they start causing you trouble. To be honest, I don't know whether a 214 would stick or not, under the circumstances, but it could be expensive finding out.

Tenant 4's Deposit wasn't protected correctly... yes, there could be an argument that their funds were paid to another party, and the same amount of funds was already present and correct inside the Deposit Protection Scheme in question... but it doesn't matter, Tenant 4's details weren't passed to the Scheme, therefore you'd also assume they cannot have had the, correct, Prescribed Information Served. The only possible 'out' I might see is if it was claimed there wasn't even a tenancy (as no agreement appears to have been signed) - but in practice there was a tenancy, rent was taken, a Deposit was paid - so it all should have been protected, correctly.

The problem may also be true of the other Tenants, for things like the Prescribed Information and Terms and Conditions etc., if the Agent is so slapdash. £350 (or a multiple thereof) is not so bad, but £1,050 starts to look worse. I'd follow the advice given - aim to end this Deposit situation as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Quote from: 35yrs doing it on August 09, 2018, 11:17:26 AMMy ear is to the ground hence the revelation of the letting agents fraudulent actions and frankly incompetence

You need to be careful in coming across as though nothing is your fault. I do not use Letting Agents, but I know that when you engage them you sign up to their Terms of Business. At some point - I would expect and hope - you must have given them approval to incur expenditure on your behalf - and that is what they have done. Yes, I think we all accept their figure for an end of tenancy clean is way out of the field - but it might not be if there has been a lot of extra work beyond an end of tenancy clean. I'd like to know if you've actually been to see the property... can you tell what's been done by this outfit, or are you as just in the dark as I am? Do you suspect you've just been presented with a big bill and nothing at all may have been done? If so, get yourself there and it'll be so easy to prove. But, if it's a 4 bedroom (maybe 3 storey) house and it has been repainted top-to-bottom... even in white or magnolia... maybe the bill is about right? This is the missing piece of the puzzle for me. Not the 12% markup - that's just how Agents behave - it'd be the same if it was their mother, their lover, their friend or just a company they engaged - they'd mark up your invoice... call it a Finder's Fee, maybe. Sticks in the throat.

So - the crux of this is - if you agreed the Agent can incur any expense on your behalf and the work they claim has been done has been done - then you're on the hook.

The alternative is that you didn't agree that, or you agreed minor work can be conducted, but they've overstepped... and they have nothing in writing saying they had your agreement to overstep - then your position should be a lot stronger.

its a 3 bed flat and the property is now being marketed for sale using internal photos taken 2 weeks before the end of tenancy by the agents which shows the flat in good decorative order. They even issued a letter to the tenants 3 days before th end of tenancy as follows:-

"We have visited the above mentioned property today to carry out our routine checks.

Upon carrying out the rouytine visit inspection report, the property was found to be in a clean and tidy condition throughout with no maintenance issues to report."

and the letter was issued by the author of the check out report compiled 3 days later !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, I can honestly say it's still not clear to me from how you relay information - are you asserting that the Agent / Cleaner have deceptively charged you for things that actually didn't happen, or is your biggest beef with the amounts charged for things that seem relatively simple to fix along with the fact the Agent did a markup?

its the overcharging and the close family connection between the lettings agent employee and the contractor. almost akin to a stitch up

So, as I mentioned, in the other thread?, the largest line item was the painting. Surely you need to inspect? If the whole of the 3 bedroom flat has been repainted top-to-bottom - it might be a fair charge. If someone went around patching white walls with white emulsion then not.