Tenancy deposit dispute

[Onegroupcard]

Won't go into all the details but long story short our landlords have proposed to keep about 70% of our deposit for things we don't believe they are entitled to do. We plan to challenge this through our deposit scheme's adjudication service. They have got quotes for some work they say needs to be done before the property can be re-let, but the thing is I happen to know the new people who have taken over the tenancy. They moved in yesterday and say it all looks good and they haven't received any notice that the landlords want to do any work. My question is, will this be a factor - can the LLs argue they should keep part of our deposit based on a quote when we have no real proof the work will even be carried out?

Raise a dispute immediately with the deposit protection company. Whoever holds the deposit will then have to send it to them until this is resolved.

They will ask for evidence etc from both sides before making a decision. Do you have an inventory from when you moved in and when you moved out? photos etc?

Yes I have all this, I'm really asking more whether the adjudicator could award money to the landlords based on nothing more than a quote, with no proof the work will actually take place.

Like, for example, if there was an area of carpet they said needed to be replaced at X cost, and the adjudicator agreed, what's to stop the LL pocketing the money without replacing the carpet?

Could they have already done it and have invoices?

The adjudicator won’t base the decision on whether the landlord decides to do the repairs. They will look at the alleged damage, assuming the before and after photos show that it occurred during your tenancy, and decide whether it is fair wear and tear or not.
Some contracts are stricter than others, we had to have the place cleaned to a professional level including carpet clean in one place and the contract was quite clear that if we didn’t our deposit would be reduced accordingly plus an admin fee.

The landlord does not have to prove the repairs have been done. If there is damage above fair wear and tear and this is awarded in the landlords favour they can do what they like with the money

No they do not have to have the work done as they are unable to charge for the full replacement. For instance if a carpet has an iron burn that was caused during your tenancy and the carpet was 3 years old. If say it was the lounge carpet they will say that in a let property a carpet should last XX years and it’s now damaged so they are able to charge a cost towards the cost of a new carpet not the full amount. The LL can then take that money and keep it until he replaces

Thank you, that's what I was after.

We're talking about a stained carpet (which BTW is 8 years old). There are check in and check out photos but the check in photos are terrible and you can't see the state of the carpet properly. IMO any stains are completely minimal and can hardly be seen but clearly the landlord has higher standards!

If you didn't stain the carpets then you have nothing to worry about. It you did, then they are well within their rights to claim minis fair wear and tear.

Depending on the quality the expected life of a carpet is between 7 and 10 years. You are only responsible for your share of the remaining life.

Thanks, that's what my deposit scheme guidance says too.

The carpet is discoloured in some places (surely landlords don't expect tenants with children to keep cream carpets completely pristine?), but it's 8 years old so presumably coming to the end of its life span as it is. I certainly don't object to making a fair contribution but I do object to them keeping £1600 of our deposit to replace carpets that are 8 years old (and frankly aren't so discoloured that they're ruined, either).

@@Onegroupcard - a similar thing happened to my daughter. The carpets were already a few years old when she moved in and a visitor knocked over a tea light, leaving a tiny burn mark on the carpet.

The LL tried to deduct a large sum from her deposit, (enough to pay for a brand new carpet) although someone else had already moved in with the same carpet still there.

When my daughter appealed through the deposit scheme, she stated that she was of the opinion that the ‘Landlord was seeking betterment’. The word betterment is an important word to use in appeals; it means that the LL wants to replace an original item with something newer/better than than was there with the tenant in situ, without taking into account fair wear/tear/age of the item.

My daughter received her full deposit back.

The LLs are arguing that they are only replacing like for like because it is the same carpet they want to replace it with. My argument is that, yes, it might be the same carpet but it is still a new carpet for old, therefore it is betterment and not like for like.

In all the deposit dispute cases I have seen (working in the office of a Lettings Agent), the tenant always comes off better than the LL, (unless the place was left looking like a hoarders rubbish tip. )

They will probably either allow a small amount for repair, or you will get the whole amount back

It absolutely wasn't left in a state at all, we had it professionally cleaned and left nothing behind.

I would try not to worry about this (easier said than done!). In my experience of these situations (2 x disputes with the deposit service) they leaned more in my favour.

If the photos don't show the stains at Check-In, are they mentioned in the written description? Either as the general carpet description or for the specific rooms?

As already stated, you should definitely dispute as they won't get betterment, so they are unlikely to get anything on 8 year old carpets if they weren't new when you moved in.

Will the new tenants let you see their Check-In report, just in case it has a different statement of condition compared with your Check-Out?

I had a landlord try to claim for lots of damages not shown in my Check-In report. I disputed them all and provided proof that most of the damages had actually been there a year before I'd moved in, despite not being recorded. I was lucky that the previous tenant had left their Check-In report in the folder of paperwork for the house.

When the landlord and their agent saw the evidence I'd submitted, they shut down the claim and returned my deposit the same day.