Who is in the wrong re deposit return for rental property?

[GunpowderGelatine]

Someone (let's call her Sue) rents a property on a six month contract, using a deposit from Bob, her dad. Sue needs a new home after leaving her cheating husband. Sally, the landlord, is a relative, and has reduced the rent for Sue and has not carried reference checks and credit checks etc. Sue gives Sally a deposit which is then protected

After 2 months Sue does a bit of a midnight flit - she tells Sally the day before, but does not give notice (Sue is moving back in with her husband whom she has forgiven). Sally terminates the contract at no cost, and manages to find another tenant who is due to move in six weeks after Sue left.

Sue has text Sally to ask her to give Bob the deposit back when it comes (Bob also paid for the two months rent while she was there). Sally says that, due to the early termination of the contract, she will be keeping the deposit as a non payment of rent because the house is empty for six weeks. A few heated words ensue and Sally tells Sue she's lucky that's all she's claimed back as she left her in the lurch and she needed the money, especially after she reduced the rent and waived a lot of the checks.

Bob and Sue are now angry at Sally and believe she should give the deposit money back to Bob. Sue already owes Bob 2 months rent and can't afford to owe him a deposit as well.

Who is in the wrong?

Poor Sally - she did someone a favour and they treat her like this !

Bob and Sue are in the wrong.
Sally did Sue a massive favour and now stands to be out of pocket for her trouble.

Are you Sue or Sally, OP?

For info - none of them are me. This is a family dilemma which I'm finding myself in the middle of and I need some perspective before I tell who I think is in the wrong, that they're in the wrong

Haha x-post @CBA2RTFT 😁

Bloody hell that'll teach poor Sally to offer a friend a favour! I don't see how anyone could think that Sue and Bob are in the right in this situation .

Sue has an obligation if she signed a 6 month AST, and left without giving a months notice to cover the rent up to the point the new tenant moved in, so Sally is not out of pocket. Sue is in the wrong and is also a CF.

Bob, shouldn't have lent the money and expected it back - lots of things can go wrong, get broken etc.

Sue, should have been aware it was a contract - which she can't just drop.

Sally has been generous and should not give the deposit back,

I would suggest Sally set out (probably in a letter) the financial cost of Sue being in the property

Normal rent vs. Sue's rent (loss of a portion of rent for 2 months)
No notice = loss of 6 weeks rent
Total vs. deposit.

I would also point out that the contract entitles Sally to 6 months rent, but you have decided not to pursue through the courts as they are family.

In my exp unfortunately the landlord is in the right. The deposit protection scheme will give the money to landlord.
Me an do gave verbal notice to over phone and via text to landlord of exactly 4 weeks. Whixh our contract stated. Internet connection was down so emailed him when back on, 2 days later. He viewed flat stated it was OK. We gave one set of keys back before we was due to move. We was moving at 5 am due to distance of new property with 2 small DC didn't want traffic.
We was able to get new property a week and a half earlier than expected so took it and informed landlord this. So once we had moved to continued to pay current and previous council tax and water. But because we left beforehand landlord kept out deposit

Sue is wrong for doing a flit and expecting no repercussions. However Sally cannot withhold a protected deposit in lieu of rent.

Can understand Bob's annoyance, but it should be directed at Sue, not Sally: it is Sue who is in his debt.

Bob and sue are in the wrong morally. Though legally the deposit is not for lost rent so shouldn't have been claimed it for that and should have followed proper procedure.

If Sue wanted the deposit back she should have taken it up with the deposit scheme. However she would let have been successful as she was in breach. Too late to complain about it now.

I would also point out that the contract entitles Sally to 6 months rent, but you have decided not to pursue through the courts as they are family

This only applies when the property is then empty, but because Sally has found someone to take up the tenancy after six weeks, she could only sue Sue for 6 weeks rent. You can't charge two separate tenants rent on the same property for the same time period

Sally is legally entitled to withhold a deposit for unpaid rent. The previous poster is wrong in saying you can't. I recently had to do this so looked into it. Sue has treated Sally very poorly and should pay Bob back too.

Yes it's true you CAN claim unpaid rent from a deposit

Sue is horrible. Two people are kind to her, and she treats them both like shit.
Bob is unfortunate in that he doesn't understand/accept the purpose of a deposit. Sadly he loses his deposit, because his daughter is horrible. Sue owes him this money.
Sally is a nice person who did a nice thing and got burned. Obviously she should keep the deposit. And reconsider mixing family/friendship and business again.

Bob needs to get tough with Sue and tell her she owes him the deposit money AND the rent money.
Sally is not in the wrong.
Bob is in the wrong for thinking Sue isn't going to take advantage of his generosity.
and Sue is in the wrong for thinking her Dad should always pay for her.

Assuming the deposit has been protected under the DPS scheme, it can be deducted for rent arrears if that's applicable, that is readonable and legal. They cannot keep the deposit as well unless there is just cause. However they are right to retain in until the issue is resolved as it will be deducted due to rent arrears. Reference and credit checks are irrelevant here to an extent, what is crucial is the tenancy agreement. It depends what, if anything, was signed, what notice period is stated in the agreement. Was there a full tenancy agreement OP?
Typically if 'Sue' has signed one stating she will be a tenant for 6 months until from 'x' date until 'x' date, and there is no break clause, she is culpable for the rent until that date.

When you say she 'terminated the contract at no cost' what do you mean by this? Is there written evidence of termination? Or are they calling it terminated by default because she just sacked it off and left- her choosing to end her tenancy out of contract is not the same as the landlord terminating the contract on that date.

If a proper scheme has been used (as is legally required) then the money will be held until the dispute is resolved (by an independent adjudicator) anyway. They will favour the law not expected favours from family- so unfortunately it really depends on the paperwork trail here, but I should imagine they will keep the deposit towards the arrears amount and can claim the rest of the contracted rent (if they didn't legally terminate it).

Either way OP this mess has been created by 'Sue' who seems to assume the world owes her a favour and other people's lives/money aren't really a proper thing. She doesn't sound particularly responsible. Would she have walked out if the LL's weren't family? It's just taking advantage isn't it.

Sally needs to be careful that she has followed all the technical rules as I understand Landlord's can lose out when they dont follow due process (and thats more than just protecting a deposit)