• Home
  • About
  • Clinic
  • Training
  • Tenants
  • Landlord Law

The Landlord Law Blog

From landlord and tenant lawyer Tessa Shepperson

  • Home
  • Posts
  • News & comment
  • Cases
  • Tenants
    • The Renters Guide Website
    • 15 Places for tenant help
  • Clinic
  • Series
    • Analysis
    • should law and justice be free
    • HMO Basics
    • Tenancy Agreements 33 days
    • Airbnb
    • Grounds for Eviction
    • Tips

Can deductions be made from my deposit if the repairs were never done?

June 6, 2017 by Tessa Shepperson

housesThis is a question to the blog clinic from Michelle who is a tenant.

Is my landlord able to lease the property to a new tenant, before refunding my deposit?

He stated that he was keeping my deposit to carry out repairs but someone else is living in the property without any said repairs being carried out?

Is he able to do this? Some of the complaints were dust, water marks, fingerprints dirt patches on the grass.

Answer

First – he’s not your agent.  He acts for your landlord, so he’s the landlord’s agent.

A deduction should not be made from your deposit for something which was never done.

A deposit deduction is supposed to be to compensate the landlord for losses they have suffered due to the tenant breaching the terms of the tenancy agreement (and there needs to be a clause in the tenancy agreement authorising this).

However, if no repair or other work has been done and the property has been re-let at the same or a higher rent, then the landlord has not suffered any loss.

I suggest that you ask for proof of payment of the items claimed – if no receipts are forthcoming, then you should challenge the deductions by applying to your tenancy deposit scheme and asking for adjudication.

You will find instructions on the scheme website on how to do this.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Readers problems

Scroll down for the comments

IMPORTANT: Please check the date of the post above - remember, if it is an old post, the law may have changed since it was written.

You should always get independent legal advice before taking any action.

Notes on comments:

For personal landlord and tenant related problems, please use our >> Blog Clinic.
Note that we do not publish all comments, please >> click here to read our terms of use and comments policy. Comments close after three months.

Keep up with the news on Landlord Law blog!

To get posts sent direct to your email in box click here

About Tessa Shepperson

Tessa is a specialist landlord & tenant solicitor and the creator of this site! She is a director of Landlord Law Services which now hosts Landlord Law and other services for landlords and property professionals.

« If I don’t sign a new tenancy agreement with a renewal fee clause will I be evicted?
Tenancy Agreements 33 days of tips – day 22 – Insurance »

Comments

  1. hbWelcome says

    June 6, 2017 at 8:47 AM

    I disagree.

    It is up to the landlord to decide whether he wishes to repair the loss or not.

    Re-let at the same or a higher rent is a complete red herring. By your logic, an outgoing tenant could nick a landlord’s fridge but if it is re-let fridgeless at a higher rent no loss has occurred.

    I disagree.

  2. Lawcruncher says

    June 6, 2017 at 10:48 AM

    To hbWelcome

    There are special rules which apply to a tenant’s failure to comply with his repairing oblgations. See section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. It provides that damages for breach cannot exceed the diminution in value of the landlord’s interest . If a landlord can relet at the market rent without carrying out any repair he has suffered no loss.

    • Romain says

      June 6, 2017 at 12:45 PM

      I would think that the landlord’s interest includes the value of the property. So whilst the landlord has relet at the same rent, arguably the value of the property has decreased by the amount it would cost to repair it.

      Actually, I think that the ‘value of the reversion’ as stated in the LTA 1927 indeed means the value of the property, and I believe this is to be assessed on the date the lease expires.

      If so, whether the property is re-let, and the rent, are not directly relevant with respect to s.18.

    • hbWelcome says

      June 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM

      “If a landlord can relet at the market rent without carrying out any repair he has suffered no loss.”

      That doesn’t follow Lawcruncher.

      You have also clouded the argument to ‘market rent’.

      In a buoyant market, a tenant can smash a place up and a landlord can still get the same rent for it unrepaired, if they are not particularly choosy about tenant. But the value of the property and the rent (or the tenant quality) are less than they would have been had the tenant not smashed it up- the landlord has suffered a loss.

      Tessa is uncharacteristically wrong. Suggest she asks one of her deposit adjudicator guest bloggers.

  3. John-Paul Keates says

    June 6, 2017 at 4:29 PM

    There may be some specific terms in the tenancy agreement – often to have the property or carpets professionally cleaned.

    The landlord is entitled to compensation for any loss in value of their asset arising during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear.

    There is no parallel requirement for the loss to be made good – the cost of any repair or replacement is likely to be greater than the “loss” in most cases. The calculation of loss should include an allowance for the lifetime of use, it isn’t simply the cost of a new replacement.

    In this case, the examples quoted sound like normal wear and tear. The tenant should dispute the proposed deduction and use the protecting agency’s dispute resolution process if the landlord doesn’t agree.

  4. Tenancy Deposit Scheme says

    June 6, 2017 at 4:54 PM

    Deposit deductions are compensatory, therefore it is the landlord’s choice as to whether they spend the money on repairing the property or not.

    With regards to receipts, all deposit protection schemes operate in the same way:

    Receipts and invoices are needed to illustrate costs for many types of claim, including, repairs or restoration, redecoration, replacement of damaging goods, gardening, cleaning and waste disposal that has been required. Receipts should be itemised with a breakdown of the costs being charged for each type of work undertaken.

    Estimates and quotes may not be as strong evidence as invoices or receipts because they’re not showing a cost that’s actually been incurred. However the adjudicator will still take them into account as they show the extent of charges necessary to rectify any damage or deterioration, as the landlord doesn’t need to have completed remedial work in order to make a claim.

    We go into this in more detail in our blog here, https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/news/blog/ask-tds-is-it-reasonable-for-my-landlord-to-claim-money-from-my-deposit-without-a-cost-breakdown/

    • Romain says

      June 6, 2017 at 5:33 PM

      I find it strange to say that “Estimates and quotes may not be as strong evidence as invoices or receipts because they’re not showing a cost that’s actually been incurred” if it is indeed “the landlord’s choice as to whether they spend the money on repairing the property or not.”

      It would seem to me that the evidence must simply be of the existence of damage and of the cost of repair.

      As a side note, an invoice shows that money has been spent but not necessarily that it is reasonable in relation to the required repair.

  5. Anthony Stevens says

    June 6, 2017 at 6:01 PM

    This contradicts a similar query made to the TDS. A landlord is not obliged to use the award.

    https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/news/blog/ask-tds-can-landlord-keep-deposit-to-redecoration/

    • hbWelcome says

      June 6, 2017 at 7:42 PM

      Thanks Anthony.
      For those that can’t be bothered to click the link;

      ‘The landlord may have decided to accept a lower rent rather than spend the money on replacing the carpet or accepted that the property may be more difficult to let. Regardless of the motivation, the landlord is under no obligation to spend the money making good the damage.’

  6. Lawcruncher says

    June 6, 2017 at 6:35 PM

    Tessa’s comments are, for all practical purposes relating to BTL, correct. I would put it slightly differently by saying that if the rent obtainable for the property without the wants of repair is the same as the rent obtainable with the wants of repair then there is no loss. There is judical authority for this – do not ask me for the case name. The judge said that if a tenant leaves the premises basically sound, he can leave it a little tired because an incoming tenant would expect to have to spruce it up. Though the case was commercial, the principles are the same.

    What we are talking about here is minor repairs which do not extend too far beyond fair wear and tear and which would not put off the average prospective tenant. There is clearly going to be a loss if the tenant casuses extensive damage.

    • Romain says

      June 6, 2017 at 9:14 PM

      As said, IMHO the value of the reversion really is the value of the property. And even without s.18 damage to the property affects the value of the property and thus that is the direct loss.

      If the damage is minimal enough not to affect the value of the property and the rental value then fine,

      • Tim says

        June 9, 2017 at 10:27 AM

        The principals are not the same between Commercial and Residential use.

        I would love to let a residential property on a fully insuring and repairing lease!

  7. hbWelcome says

    June 6, 2017 at 7:27 PM

    “Tessa’s comments are, for all practical purposes relating to BTL, correct.”

    Clearly they are not.

    As the practical post from ‘Tenancy Deposit Scheme’ practically shows how it works for practical purposes…In practice.

    Hope Tessa will have the good grace to concede that.

    As for going off on a tangent with an unsourced attempt at side tracking the issue.
    – You are losing your touch Lawcruncher.

  8. Lawcruncher says

    June 6, 2017 at 8:48 PM

    Tenancy Deposit Scheme’s post does not contradict Tessa’s and my point that a landlord suffers no loss if his rental income is not prejudiced.

    • Guest101 says

      June 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM

      It depends, the LL could suffer loss in time rectifying the issues for example.

    • Romain says

      June 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM

      But he does suffer a loss, as explained previously.

  9. Guest101 says

    June 7, 2017 at 12:51 PM

    I disagree also. If someone crashes into my car, I’m entitled to be compensated to the value of my vehicle, I don’t necessarily have to replace it. The principle is the same as far as I’m aware.

  10. Lawcruncher says

    June 8, 2017 at 11:08 AM

    Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 says:

    Damages for a breach of a covenant or agreement to keep or put premises in repair […] shall in no case exceed the amount (if any) by which the value of the reversion […] in the premises is diminished owing to the breach of such covenant or agreement […]

    (Anyone who thinks I have left out anything relevant to this discussion can go and check the Act.)

    Whatever the law may be with regard to anything else, the above is the law relating to breaches of repairing covenants by tenants.

    So, at the end of a tenancy the question to ask is: Is the value of the property in its present condition less than its value if the wants of repair were made good? If the answer is “no” then the landlord is not entitled to damages. We are not talking here about a theoretical decrease in the value, but what the position would be in practice. Is it ever going to be the case that if you have a property with “a few scratches on it” that sprucing it up will secure a better price? Almost never.

    You have to apply this test when assessing damages if reletting rather than selling. If a landlord, without carrying out, or agreeing to carry out, the repairs he wants damages for relets quickly at the current market rent, he is going to have difficulty persuading a court that he has suffered a loss.

    • hbWelcome says

      June 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM

      Nice theories Lawcrunch but we already have the definitive answer from the experts who actually decide these matters (and who the courts ordinarily defer to);

      Tenancy Deposit Scheme says
      June 6, 2017 at 4:54 PM

      “It is the landlord’s choice as to whether they spend the money on repairing the property or not.”

      Couldn’t be clearer.

  11. rentfriend says

    June 16, 2017 at 2:31 PM

    This is my first comment on this blog and I would like to say thank you for the great articles. Tons of very useful information for each and every landlord.

“Interesting posts on residential landlord & tenant law and practice - in England & Wales UK”

Subscribe to the Landlord Law Blog by email

Never miss another post!

Sign up to our
>> daily updates

If you are new to the blog >> click here

Get Your Free Ebook:

Click to get your Free Ebook

>> Click Here for Your Free Copy

Featured Post

Tessa Shepperson

Why you need and how to get proper legal advice on landlord and tenant issues

Tessa’s Podcast

The Landlord and Lawyer Podcast

Worried about Insurance?

Landlord Law Insurance Mini-Course

Disclaimer

The purpose of this blog is to provide information, comment and discussion.

Although Tessa, or guest bloggers, may from time to time, give helpful comments to readers' questions, these can only be based on the information given by the reader in his or her comment, which may not contain all material facts.

Any comments or suggestions provided by Tessa or any guest bloggers should not, therefore be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified lawyer regarding any actual legal issue or dispute.

Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or perceived as creating a lawyer-client relationship (apart from the Fast Track block clinic service - so far as the questioners only are concerned).

Please also note that any opinion expressed by a guest blogger is his or hers alone, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Tessa Shepperson, or the other writers on this blog.

Cookies

You can find out more about our use of 'cookies' on this website here.

Associated sites

Landlord Law Services
The Renters Guide
Eco Landlords
Your Law Store

Legal

Landlord Law Blog is © 2006 – 2021 Tessa Shepperson.

Note that Tessa is an introducer for Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers and will get a commission from sales made via links on this website.

© 2006–2022 Tessa Shepperson | Rainmaker Platform | Contact Page | Privacy | Log in

This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
I accept