When is a 'bond' not a 'bond'?

[watchcoll 10]

That's his point, why would anyone demand the two month's rent? Is this usual?

 

sounds to me like the landlord worded it so that no bond existed. however, your friend paid rent two months in advance rather than one. so is owed two months rent back from the landlord if he didnt stop paying it two months before he left.

 

if the contract states that £600 was handed over on signing but there was no bond stated then pursue that this was rent in advance and the tenant requires a refund. i'd also think that your friend would get the full amount back as the landlord cannot deduct anything if it was never technically a bond?

[sept88 10]

I have found that every landlord ask for a bond this can be equivalent to 4-6 weeks rent, this you will get back when you move out of the home, if the home is how it was when moved in. you also have to pay a months rent in advance then when you give a months notice to leave you dont pay the final months rent.

[HarrietStar 10]

Its important to note that it is now compulsory for every landlord to register your deposit with a protection scheme... so if this £600 wasn't a deposit, you could argue he broke the rules as he didn't register a desposit in a scheme.

[watchcoll 10]

Its important to note that it is now compulsory for every landlord to register your deposit with a protection scheme... so if this £600 wasn't a deposit, you could argue he broke the rules as he didn't register a desposit in a scheme.

 

i suspect that the landlord deliberately avoided calling the extra £300 a 'deposit' so he could avoid this rule/law.

 

a landlord only has to register a deposit if one is requested by the landlord and then paid by the tennant. it will also be receipted and recorded on the contract as having been paid.

 

if no official deposit existed then there was no need to deposit anything in an official scheme.

 

i still think the tennant should pursure the landlord for a refund of rent he has overpaid. the landlord has pulled a fast one on the deposit, by the sounds of it.

[aelfheah 10]

Watchcoll, that is exactly the case,

 

But the update is- today my colleague was due in the small claims court, and won!!!!

 

The judge ruled that what the landlord had said was "two month's rent upfront" (my friend insisted was a "bond") was actually a rent & a bond!

He ordered - acc to the law- the dismayed defendant to pay my colleague three times the original full value of the bond, plus the remainder of the original rent that had been only partly paid back!! The ex-landlord was - to his chagrin- denied right to appeal further as he stands a v.v.slim chance of success.

 

So if anyone knows anyone in a similar situation, tell them to get to small claims, as the law specifically defines what a bond or security deposit is!

[FORE 12]

I have found that every landlord ask for a bond this can be equivalent to 4-6 weeks rent, this you will get back when you move out of the home, if the home is how it was when moved in. you also have to pay a months rent in advance then when you give a months notice to leave you dont pay the final months rent.

 

That's hardly a bond then is it?

 

The landlord has no bond to return / discuss at the end of the last month.

[watchcoll 10]

Watchcoll, that is exactly the case,

 

But the update is- today my colleague was due in the small claims court, and won!!!!

 

The judge ruled that what the landlord had said was "two month's rent upfront" (my friend insisted was a "bond") was actually a rent & a bond!

He ordered - acc to the law- the dismayed defendant to pay my colleague three times the original full value of the bond, plus the remainder of the original rent that had been only partly paid back!! The ex-landlord was - to his chagrin- denied right to appeal further as he stands a v.v.slim chance of success.

 

So if anyone knows anyone in a similar situation, tell them to get to small claims, as the law specifically defines what a bond or security deposit is!

 

im glad your friend pursued this to the small claims court. i've been renting for over 10 years and know my way around all the pitfalls and contracts fairly well. there are a lot of good landlords out there, but there are also some real cowboys.

 

i have turned down some seemingly nice properties in the past as i didnt trust the shifty landlord or his terms of business.

 

im glad that this particular landlord got what he deserved and has hopefully learnt a lesson that the laws in place to protect tenants can and do work.

[pinner 10]

Look at s.213 et seq. of the Housing Act 2004; or also try a really excellent website called LandlordZONE: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk

[aelfheah 10]

Thanks, watchcoll! The landlord will be quaking now in case other tenants find out the result!

 

Pinner, he quoted 212(8.) of that same Housing law, as did the judge!!! Lol

[Electerrific 14]

Great story, but I think that the rules changed shortly afterwards, no more such claims to be made??

[Jeffrey Shaw 93]

The changes to Chapter 4 of the Housing Act 2004 [sections 212-215, dealing with Tenancy Deposit Schemes] were made by section 184 of the Localism Act 2011. The changes took effect on 6 April 2012 (i.e. subsequent to post #21 on 26 January 2011).

[Electerrific 14]

Jeffery, what exactly did those rule changes mean- in real terms- for the 'man in the street'?

 

I was told that no more such cases, as in this thread, can be raised?