OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
Full Version: Going To Court
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM) 
OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
I'd call their bluff. Have they actually issued you with a court summons?
It sounds to me like you've made them a reasonable offer... I'd let it go to court. If you lose we could have a whip-round on HPC* - I'm in for £20!
I'd say go to court... even if you win nothing, at least you'll have the experience of how the system works under your belt for next time!
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
You really do need to talk to a lawyer. The CAB often have free talk to a lawyer for 10 minutes type sessions, give them a call.
absoulutely, talking to a lawyer is a great idea -
got to say, on first glance, 4 grand for wear on one chair, and a red wine stain on a kitchen surface seems preposterous, and is likely to seem so in court.
have you tried Cill!t B@ng? it seems to remove curry stains and skin, so red wine shouldn't be a problem
got to say, on first glance, 4 grand for wear on one chair, and a red wine stain on a kitchen surface seems preposterous, and is likely to seem so in court.
have you tried Cill!t B@ng? it seems to remove curry stains and skin, so red wine shouldn't be a problem
Your landlord must be getting desperate for money
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
Do I have a chance?
I think you do, don't let him bully you. £4K for wine stain! Is his kitchen made of gold? As advised pop into CAB.
If you have in writing that he is disputing your deposit just based on these things it sounds pretty unlikely that £4k should be kept.
Take him to court, the only way to discourage these *****.
Take him to court, the only way to discourage these *****.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
no point being negative
go to Court...
Haven't you already been told to take him to court for the full sum?
This is genuine wear and tear not deliberate damage. The stain will come out with the right stuff (what worktop stains??) and the chair is wear and tear.
Demand your full deposit back.
Every kitchen should withstand a glass of wine. A lounge carpet would be expected to stain but not a worktop.
(is it wood? sand and reoil for about 20p)
This is genuine wear and tear not deliberate damage. The stain will come out with the right stuff (what worktop stains??) and the chair is wear and tear.
Demand your full deposit back.
Every kitchen should withstand a glass of wine. A lounge carpet would be expected to stain but not a worktop.
(is it wood? sand and reoil for about 20p)
how much deposit is he with-holding ?
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
Just confirm if this is right.
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
2) The chair is worn just by use. There was no neglect. The three person sofa and the other chair is in acceptable condition. If the court rules in their favour. Am I right in think that the damage is the cost of just the one chair, minus 60% or so for depreciation?
I have offered £680 to settle and was flatly refused without even a counter offer. They think the damage is nearer four thousand (it was probably a threat, I still have the e-mail). I did not withhold the last months rent. The deposit has been withheld for three months. I sadly didn't take any photos.
Do I have a chance?
I should say so.
As others said you should take advice, I have heard that the CAB are good for this stuff but what you have described could be easily be described as "normal wear and tear" - ok maybe the wine stain on the kitchen surface was possibly neglectful but surely that would be removable with the apropriate technique? It does not sound as if you have willfully destroyed or broken anything.
If you have your offer to settle in writing (which is more than generous imho) and their reply turning this down too then I really dont think that the LL has a leg to stand on in court. £660 is a more than generous offer to cover any so called damage.
Good luck
YOU can submit a claim online here which saves you the hassle of going to the county court and getting the forms and doing it manually
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp
Please check that Money Claim Online is suitable for your claim before you start.
Money Claim Online is suitable if:
Your claim is for a fixed amount of money (no more than £99,999.99)
Your claim is against no more than 2 defendants
You have an address in England or Wales where documents can be delivered
All defendants have an address in England or Wales where documents can be delivered
You have an e-mail address
If your claim does not meet all of the above requirements your cannot use this service and you should contact the Customer Help Desk for advice.
Customer Help Desk Money Claim Online
The Customer Help Desk can be contacted for support between 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:
Tel : 0845-601 5935
Fax : 0845-601 5889
If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:
Money Claim Online
Northampton County Court
21-27 St. Katharine's Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH
or e-mail to customerservice.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp
Please check that Money Claim Online is suitable for your claim before you start.
Money Claim Online is suitable if:
Your claim is for a fixed amount of money (no more than £99,999.99)
Your claim is against no more than 2 defendants
You have an address in England or Wales where documents can be delivered
All defendants have an address in England or Wales where documents can be delivered
You have an e-mail address
If your claim does not meet all of the above requirements your cannot use this service and you should contact the Customer Help Desk for advice.
Customer Help Desk Money Claim Online
The Customer Help Desk can be contacted for support between 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:
Tel : 0845-601 5935
Fax : 0845-601 5889
If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:
Money Claim Online
Northampton County Court
21-27 St. Katharine's Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH
or e-mail to customerservice.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk
OK. Just a clarification. I did submit a claim online for the full deposit. He has chosen to defend it. He's being sued not me. He hasn't chosen to counter claim which is positive.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 02:43 PM)
OK. Just a clarification. I did submit a claim online for the full deposit. He has chosen to defend it. He's being sued not me. He hasn't chosen to counter claim which is positive.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
how much is he with-holding ? how long does the online process take ?
surely everything you have mentioned is reasonable wear and tear so why on earth offer him 600 plus quid ?
QUOTE(jimmyjazz @ Sep 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
how much is he with-holding ? how long does the online process take ?
surely everything you have mentioned is reasonable wear and tear so why on earth offer him 600 plus quid ?
surely everything you have mentioned is reasonable wear and tear so why on earth offer him 600 plus quid ?
He is withholding £1,320. The online process is quick. They had 2-3 weeks to respond. They responded late and chose to defend.
It isn't about the money. I offered a generous settlement just so we wouldn't have to go to court. I was advised to "appeal to his better nature". I also believe it looks better to the judge that I have been reasonable. I guess it all hinges on what counts as wear and tear.
I think you have a good chance of winning in a small claims court because current legislation is in your favour.
Having rented for the past ten years I've had to accept that my deposits were a write-off - however carefully I treated the place. Even in unfurnished lets a landlord could claim that you'd "done something" to a light fitting, or any other permanent fixture, and it was impossible in the absence of photo evidence to prove otherwise, thus cash/deposit in the landlord's hand called the tune - there was nothing you could do to get your deposit back. Which is what inspired the new legislation re deposits - landlords had begun to think of deposits as bonus payments on the termination of a tenancy. Not any more. The law is currently favouring the tenant re depositis, so go to court. My bet is you'll win.
Having rented for the past ten years I've had to accept that my deposits were a write-off - however carefully I treated the place. Even in unfurnished lets a landlord could claim that you'd "done something" to a light fitting, or any other permanent fixture, and it was impossible in the absence of photo evidence to prove otherwise, thus cash/deposit in the landlord's hand called the tune - there was nothing you could do to get your deposit back. Which is what inspired the new legislation re deposits - landlords had begun to think of deposits as bonus payments on the termination of a tenancy. Not any more. The law is currently favouring the tenant re depositis, so go to court. My bet is you'll win.
QUOTE(Methinkshe @ Sep 6 2007, 02:55 PM)
I think you have a good chance of winning in a small claims court because current legislation is in your favour.
Having rented for the past ten years I've had to accept that my deposits were a write-off - however carefully I treated the place. Even in unfurnished lets a landlord could claim that you'd "done something" to a light fitting, or any other permanent fixture, and it was impossible in the absence of photo evidence to prove otherwise, thus cash/deposit in the landlord's hand called the tune - there was nothing you could do to get your deposit back. Which is what inspired the new legislation re deposits - landlords had begun to think of deposits as bonus payments on the termination of a tenancy. Not any more. The law is currently favouring the tenant re depositis, so go to court. My bet is you'll win.
Having rented for the past ten years I've had to accept that my deposits were a write-off - however carefully I treated the place. Even in unfurnished lets a landlord could claim that you'd "done something" to a light fitting, or any other permanent fixture, and it was impossible in the absence of photo evidence to prove otherwise, thus cash/deposit in the landlord's hand called the tune - there was nothing you could do to get your deposit back. Which is what inspired the new legislation re deposits - landlords had begun to think of deposits as bonus payments on the termination of a tenancy. Not any more. The law is currently favouring the tenant re depositis, so go to court. My bet is you'll win.
Last year was our first year renting. We rented fully furnished and got our deposit back in full without any fuss at all.
Thank god for the tenancy deposit scheme this year.
OK. I know the arguments for and against. Decided I have nothing to lose. And hope that the judge is sympathetic.
OK. I know the arguments for and against. Decided I have nothing to lose. And hope that the judge is sympathetic.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:54 PM)
He is withholding £1,320. The online process is quick. They had 2-3 weeks to respond. They responded late and chose to defend.
It isn't about the money. I offered a generous settlement just so we wouldn't have to go to court. I was advised to "appeal to his better nature". I also believe it looks better to the judge that I have been reasonable. I guess it all hinges on what counts as wear and tear.
It isn't about the money. I offered a generous settlement just so we wouldn't have to go to court. I was advised to "appeal to his better nature". I also believe it looks better to the judge that I have been reasonable. I guess it all hinges on what counts as wear and tear.
Reasonableness and good faith is a big scorer in courtrooms. You have acted with both, whereas LL has not.
I would walk backwards to Warsaw if court didn't award you at least some of the deposit, possibly the majority.
QUOTE(The_Oldie @ Sep 6 2007, 03:02 PM)
Last year was our first year renting. We rented fully furnished and got our deposit back in full without any fuss at all.
lucky you ....many dont ...
QUOTE
The_Oldie Posted Today, 03:02 PM
Last year was our first year renting. We rented fully furnished and got our deposit back in full without any fuss at all.
Last year was our first year renting. We rented fully furnished and got our deposit back in full without any fuss at all.
Me too.
Some red wine remover and omg you've been sitting in a chair! I'd make him pay a fine for wasting the courts time the leech.
QUOTE(The_Oldie @ Sep 6 2007, 03:02 PM)
Last year was our first year renting. We rented fully furnished and got our deposit back in full without any fuss at all.
Not me. The landlord before that went to jail for financial fraud. Lost the whole deposit despite getting the CCJ and sending the bailiffs over.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
1) The landlord said the kitchen top cost £800 three years ago. (I have this in an e-mail) Doesn't that make the market value of the kitchen top about £300ish. Are fittings calculated this way.
Surely the most you are liable for is the cost of a three year old kitchen top less the cost of a three year old kitchen top with a wine stain in it, so, what £50 tops? And arguably, food and drink stains in a kitchen top are wear and tear anyway. What sort of kitchen top picks up wine stains anyway? What's it made of, chalk?
I'd go to the mattresses, this chancer doesn't deserve a penny.
QUOTE(evictee @ Sep 6 2007, 03:42 PM)
I'd go to the mattresses
from the Godfather I do believe
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 02:43 PM)
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I had all this crap from my ex LL last year. He told the letting agent that he wanted to withold money because the sun had faded the carpet !!
You are right to think that the LL doesn't understand his obligations. The property would have had some wear and tear if he had lived there for the last few years, it's up to him to prove that the condition it was left in was not reasonable wear and tear. He is able to offset 10% of the rent against wear and tear (ie tax free) I believe.
QUOTE(muttley @ Sep 6 2007, 04:00 PM)
I had all this crap from my ex LL last year. He told the letting agent that he wanted to withold money because the sun had faded the carpet !!
You are right to think that the LL doesn't understand his obligations. The property would have had some wear and tear if he had lived there for the last few years, it's up to him to prove that the condition it was left in was not reasonable wear and tear. He is able to offset 10% of the rent against wear and tear (ie tax free) I believe.
You are right to think that the LL doesn't understand his obligations. The property would have had some wear and tear if he had lived there for the last few years, it's up to him to prove that the condition it was left in was not reasonable wear and tear. He is able to offset 10% of the rent against wear and tear (ie tax free) I believe.
OK. Plot thickening a bit here. I have an e-mail from March 2006. Where I make a mention of a broken radiator and damp in the shower that was never seen too. Worth submitting as evidence? Twist the knife in, or irrelevant.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 03:07 PM)
OK. Plot thickening a bit here. I have an e-mail from March 2006. Where I make a mention of a broken radiator and damp in the shower that was never seen too. Worth submitting as evidence? Twist the knife in, or irrelevant.
Can't hurt. It all goes to who is acting in good faith. Judges don't like @rsehole LLs.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 04:07 PM)
OK. Plot thickening a bit here. I have an e-mail from March 2006. Where I make a mention of a broken radiator and damp in the shower that was never seen too. Worth submitting as evidence? Twist the knife in, or irrelevant.
Unlikely to be relevant I would think.
Just out of interest have you tried going round to his house and nutting the f*cker? I've heard this oftens speeds up resolution no end. You might also consider ripping off one of his ears and telling him you'll be back later for the other one/your deposit. Just a thought!
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 01:48 PM)
The damage as he sees it is a red wine stain on the kitchen unit and one chair worn/stained.
This is fair wear and tear. He is not entitled to withold the deposit in these circumstances
http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_wit..._disps_dams.pdf
http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Wear%20&%20Tear.pdf
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/zoom/search....amp;zoom_sort=0
QUOTE(Baz63 @ Sep 6 2007, 05:01 PM)
This is fair wear and tear. He is not entitled to withold the deposit in these circumstances
http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_wit..._disps_dams.pdf
http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Wear%20&%20Tear.pdf
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/zoom/search....amp;zoom_sort=0
http://www.arla.co.uk/download/dealing_wit..._disps_dams.pdf
http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Wear%20&%20Tear.pdf
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/zoom/search....amp;zoom_sort=0
Thanks Baz. These documents are really useful. I particularly like this quote as it seems up my position.
QUOTE
It follows therefore (and is an established legal tenet) that a landlord is not entitled to charge his tenants the full cost for having any part of his property, or any fixture or fitting, “…..put back to the condition it was at the start of the tenancy.”
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 12:48 AM)
OK, it seems as if the landlord is fighting back. He is defending his right to keep the whole deposit, but has declined to counter claim.
It sounds like the landlord is posturing in the hope that you will give in to what sounds like a vexatious and wholly unreasonable demand. My approach to this would be:
(1) Keep calm. If this is the worst thing that ever happens to you, count yourself lucky.
(2) I would avoid getting dragged into any arguements or discussions but I would ask him lots of questions (in writing). These kind of people can often be drawn into making stupid and damning admissions.
(3) I would always leave 24 hours between writing any response and sending it.
(4) Keep every scrap of paper and notes of any coversations.
(5) Take advice from the CAB as earlier writers have suggested.
It sounds like you have been reasonable and measured in your response. The other party by contrast sounds pretty wild and flakey (possibly he is in financial difficulties). If it was me I would want my day in court.
QUOTE(Shedfish @ Sep 6 2007, 02:07 PM)
absoulutely, talking to a lawyer is a great idea -
rubbish! you don't need a lawyer! just go to the moneyclaim website and start court proceedings online. The landlord is making ridiculous demands and has turned down a reasonable settlement, which counts as a boig plus to you, as you have shown willingness to settle and avoid the courts. also a judge is always more likely to rule in favour of tenants because they know what landlords can be like.
Remember - its down to the landlord to prove beyond doubt that it was you that caused the damage. An inventory may be used, but it is not a legally binding document unless witnessed by a solicitor
Even if you do end up having to pay, you only have to contribute to replacement costs, calculated from the depreciated cost of the item, not the whole cost of replacement. If the item is not damaged beyond use, then you do not need to pay to replace, only to fix or clean.
as for the seat, tenants can not be charged for wear and tear.
Take the fecker to court forgey the lawyers they just make a balls of things.
I would stake money you will get judgement by default because he wont file a defence and he will fail to appear.
I would stake money you will get judgement by default because he wont file a defence and he will fail to appear.
I should see a lawyer, because it appears that you have made an offer (£650 I think without reading back), therefore, he is likely to bring that up citing that you thought there was some substance in his claim otherwise why would you have offered anything. Of course, if you made a WITHOUT PREJUDICE offer then he cant produce the offer in court.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 02:43 PM)
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I make no comment about the honesty of your landlord or the merit of the case.
However, any lawyer and any court would agree that a deposit is not allowed to be witheld simply for the purpose of redecorating a property back to new standard after the tenant has left.
Reminds me of an experience I had with a LL some years ago and I've heard similar stories from others. See, the problem was my LL thought that the deposit was a sort of 'good behaviour bond' (in effect) and if there was any technical infringement, he got to keep it all regardless of the scale of the infringement (e.g., finding a bottlecap down the back of the sofa). I know this because the idiot wrote it down in a letter!
Good luck with it anyway. I hope you get every penny back.
A porous worktop that would stain is likely to have needed replacing anyway -
http://www.onefitappliances.co.uk/omega-worktops-m-44.html
Look at the prices of worktops on here for an idea of how much yours would have cost to replace. Even with a few hours labour it's not much.
A porous worktop that would stain is likely to have needed replacing anyway -
http://www.onefitappliances.co.uk/omega-worktops-m-44.html
Look at the prices of worktops on here for an idea of how much yours would have cost to replace. Even with a few hours labour it's not much.
Hey All. Thanks for your help.
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 6 2007, 02:43 PM)
OK. Just a clarification. I did submit a claim online for the full deposit. He has chosen to defend it. He's being sued not me. He hasn't chosen to counter claim which is positive.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I've just read through the e-mails. Apparently the sofa suffers from "colour transfer". That really sounds like wear to me. How much wear is too much?
The landlords are (I believe) an honest bunch. But they are moving back into their old flat and are disappointed that it isn't in the exact condition it was left. They are being a bit unreasonable about it. I wanted to make a claim because it seemed to me, at least that they were missing the legal aspect in all this. Ie. Furniture degrades, it gets worn, it gets devalued and a landlord has no right to pass the costs of returning it to its showroom condition to the tenant.
I've experienced this in the past. The owners mother managed the property and thought that it should be returned in exactly the same condition as they left it. I made sure I got every single penny of my deposit back from her.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 11 2007, 08:06 PM)
Hey All. Thanks for your help.
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
Again, I am not a lawyer, so please don't take this as legal advice, but:
You may find your landlord has put in a counter claim as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. The guy I (successfully) sued did this but then proceeded to provide absolutely no evidence to back up his story or justify any of the costs. The first thing the judge did at the hearing was strike out the counterclaim for these very reasons. Again, this comes down to who is being reasonable. I would not say that 2,500 (strangely round number there!!!!!) is reasonable to put right the damage you have described. I was claiming for repairs to my car after a garage set my car's alternator on fire (really) and then dumped it back outside my house, saying that the problem was there when I brought it in. It took months to go to court and I didn't get the car fixed straight away (it was undriveable) whilst I was trying to get them to do the right thing. I was not allowed to claim for things like depreciation of the car whilst it was off the road etc.
Don't worry - I'm sure you'll be fine because you certainly sound like the reasonable one in this dispute. You may well come out the winner! Given that judges tend to side with tenants, I would say he's on very flimsy ground without evidence of the damage and even if he has, he's not allowed to claim ridiculous amounts. Then again, like the defendant in my case, he might not even turn up on the day. If he gets anything like the full 2,500, I'll eat the keyboard I am using to type this...
Good luck!
Don't forget to include your costs + time in the claim.
Good Luck.
Good Luck.
QUOTE(Mikesev @ Sep 11 2007, 08:57 PM)
Don't forget to include your costs + time in the claim.
and interest on both (the judge will work this out for you).
QUOTE(Ed Norton @ Sep 11 2007, 09:06 PM)
and interest on both (the judge will work this out for you).
Done thanks. The interest is 8%. Considering the state of the credit market, should I ask for more?
Looking forward to the battle in court.
Make sure you keep us up to date - this is much better than tonight's telly...
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 11 2007, 08:06 PM)
Hey All. Thanks for your help.
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
I was wrong, he is actually sueing me for the full £2,500.
Here is the reason for the counter claim:
The cost of repairs and return of property to original condition exceeds deposit paid by tenants.
I'll let you all know how I get on. Wish me luck!
£2,500 for sitting on a chair and a food stain on a food preparation surface?
The judging member in this case will relish demonstrating the worth of the new tenancy deposit scheme by returning your deposit in full (with interest).
I mean seriously, if you'd offered them £100 to settle it would have been generous. People who don't understand the law annoy me - I look forward to hearing the outcome.
QUOTE(thedebtisreal @ Sep 11 2007, 09:09 PM)
Done thanks. The interest is 8%. Considering the state of the credit market, should I ask for more?
Looking forward to the battle in court.
Looking forward to the battle in court.
I had to threaten to take my former landlady to court in order to get my deposit back.
Basically stop what you are doing and go and talk to the CAB.
I did that. The IR on the deposit is something like 12% I think (it was fixed ages ago back in the 90s).
You may end up taking them to the small claims court.
It's designed to help people out in your position. So you won't need a lawer, and it shouldn't be too expensive even if you lose.
The secret IIRC is to make sure you can prove you've attempted to be reasonable outside of court,
and of course if you can back everything up with proof.
But don't take it from some nutters on a website (myself included) go and speak to the CAB!
QUOTE(Ed Norton @ Sep 11 2007, 08:45 PM)
Again, I am not a lawyer, so please don't take this as legal advice, but:
You may find your landlord has put in a counter claim as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. The guy I (successfully) sued did this but then proceeded to provide absolutely no evidence to back up his story or justify any of the costs. The first thing the judge did at the hearing was strike out the counterclaim for these very reasons. Again, this comes down to who is being reasonable. I would not say that 2,500 (strangely round number there!!!!!) is reasonable to put right the damage you have described. I was claiming for repairs to my car after a garage set my car's alternator on fire (really) and then dumped it back outside my house, saying that the problem was there when I brought it in. It took months to go to court and I didn't get the car fixed straight away (it was undriveable) whilst I was trying to get them to do the right thing. I was not allowed to claim for things like depreciation of the car whilst it was off the road etc.
Don't worry - I'm sure you'll be fine because you certainly sound like the reasonable one in this dispute. You may well come out the winner! Given that judges tend to side with tenants, I would say he's on very flimsy ground without evidence of the damage and even if he has, he's not allowed to claim ridiculous amounts. Then again, like the defendant in my case, he might not even turn up on the day. If he gets anything like the full 2,500, I'll eat the keyboard I am using to type this...
Good luck!
You may find your landlord has put in a counter claim as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. The guy I (successfully) sued did this but then proceeded to provide absolutely no evidence to back up his story or justify any of the costs. The first thing the judge did at the hearing was strike out the counterclaim for these very reasons. Again, this comes down to who is being reasonable. I would not say that 2,500 (strangely round number there!!!!!) is reasonable to put right the damage you have described. I was claiming for repairs to my car after a garage set my car's alternator on fire (really) and then dumped it back outside my house, saying that the problem was there when I brought it in. It took months to go to court and I didn't get the car fixed straight away (it was undriveable) whilst I was trying to get them to do the right thing. I was not allowed to claim for things like depreciation of the car whilst it was off the road etc.
Don't worry - I'm sure you'll be fine because you certainly sound like the reasonable one in this dispute. You may well come out the winner! Given that judges tend to side with tenants, I would say he's on very flimsy ground without evidence of the damage and even if he has, he's not allowed to claim ridiculous amounts. Then again, like the defendant in my case, he might not even turn up on the day. If he gets anything like the full 2,500, I'll eat the keyboard I am using to type this...
Good luck!
As they are countersuing make sure you go to court.
After we got married the chauffeur firm tried to sue us for overtime. We offered them part payment and put in a counterclaim. They cashed the cheque but refused to drop their claim, so we turned up at the County Court, they weren't there and offered no evidence and they ended up with a CCJ.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.