Fair or unfair landlord treatment – We’re OUT!

Reading some of the horror stories made me wonder whether anyone had taken a deposit scheme adjudicator to court for incompetence? Or is it really that landlords are too trusting and don't have all the evidence to prove damage?

Reply to the comment left by Mike W at 20/03/2018 - 18:15
I guess it is a lot of hassle for the small guy to take a bigger organisation to court.

Reply to the comment left by MrsC at 20/03/2018 - 09:20
The landlord is highly unlikely to halt the section 21 as now the council (environmental services i am guessing) have been involved it would look bad and potentially put him at risk of a malicious eviction claim if he decided to serve notice after the visit. Therefore the previously issued section 21 is his protection against that.
It is a shame that the landlord hasn't chosen to engage with you over the defects you list. It has to be agreed that there are bad landlords as well as bad tenants. I am against both.
You are better to leave and find a better landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Mike W at 20/03/2018 - 18:15
I tried to do so, but had missed a short deadline to make an initial complaint. At that stage, my letting agent was dealing with the administration and I regret not being fully up to speed with the process. Missing the opportunity to complain would have been to my detriment in Court. I'm now much more informed of the process.

I'm totally stunned by Joe's experience. I'm obviously completely naive as to the machinations of the dispute process, never having been through it myself. Having read their guidance I thought Joe's case would be cut and dried. Presuming he had a receipt to prove the carpets were new (which he provided to the Dispute Resolution Service) and he had a signed inventory confirming that the carpets were new and undamaged, along with a photo of the room preferably showing the overall new condition of the carpet I would have expected that would be sufficient. If the carpet is brand new and used for the first time by the outgoing tenant, the tenant has confirmed the condition in the signed report, surely it is reasonable to assume that the damage was not present when the tenant moved in and is the responsibility of the outgoing tenant? An inventory states that if signed as accurate by the tenant that it will be relied upon to represent the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy and thus becomes a legally binding contractual document. Doesn't the adjudicator have a legal responsibility to rely on this document as legally binding and a true representation of the properties condition? Any pre-existing damage should be detailed on the inventory and we give our tenants 72 hours to report anything they had not noticed at the time of signing. Clearly I'm deluded!

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 21/03/2018 - 11:58
Kate your perception of how it should is correct but unfortunately many of us have had very different outcomes. The TDS are a nightmare to deal with and a law to themselves. This why i am very interested in exploring the concept of no deposit tenancies but charge a higher rate of rent. I don't see this as a bad deal for the tenants either.

I'm now forewarned at least. Had I not read this thread I would have definitely used the ADR service in the event of a dispute, but I will now think twice. I can't honestly say I have a photographic record of every square inch of carpet!

I have found same problems with properties dirty and damage
The deposit scheme is very difficult to obtain a fair compensation
Solution has been to be very selective with new tenants and increase rent by 40% in last two years to cover tax , legislative and general trading Enviorment we now find ourself . Also selling 33% of Property to pay down debt
- much higher rent , less properties to manage I almost want to thank goverment
- If all landlords do the same the economics of a reduced PRS sector will result in high demand and high rents

It is about time that we landlords did something to overcome such difficulties and problems, here is my solution to this deposit. DON'T CHARGE ANY, or DON'T ASK FOR ANY. so not only you would not need to protect it and provide tenant with prescribed instructions, just say you do not take deposit and mention this clearly on your AST agreement that NO DEPOSIT TAKEN. make sure you ask the tenant to countersign this statement.
Then as an example you are seeking £1000 PCM Rent, if you did charge Deposit it cannot be more than 1 months rent equivalent, i.e. £1000, so now what you do is divide this figure by 12 and add it to your monthly rent figure, which means you will need to market your property at slightly higher rent than what you were seeking, so for a £1000 pcm rent you should not take deposit and charge your tenant £1083 PCM, you may if you wish tell the tenant that when he leaves, you may reward him with some cash back depending on the state they leave your property in, if it is left in an immaculate state as they went in, you may hand them cash back of say £500.00 to encourage them to leave it in good state. If they don't you simply don't pay them any cash back, you then can spend that extra rent you charged to do the minor repairs they damaged.

I had a short career in sport so thought I would be careful with my money and buy property as a future investment and as a bit of a pension. 20 years on and one recession later and like you, have had enough of being the one paying for every government and bank mistake since 2008. I had 10 properties at once and just trying to sell the last 4, I think I have probably lost nearly £300,000 in that 20 years. Ground rent,block managers, tenants, letting agents (not all) all ripping you off if they can. Just been charged £420.00 for a management pack so I can try and sell a flat, £420.00 for a pdf and 20 minutes work. Do I have to pay it!? Of course I do otherwise I can't sell the flat and get out of this hell whole that is the modern private rented sector. I am out as well!