Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
My daughter has no idea. The damage was not visible but the landlord "claimed the connecting wires to the mains had been deliberately cut" again this is accusation without proof and purely subjective" Considering we went to considerable trouble to make sure that the property had adequate fire and safety standards it is hardly plausible that my daughter or any of her flatmates would deliberately disconnect a smoke alarm designed to protect them. We have no idea if the alarm was working when fitted.
Hi Jo, we had no issues with referencing via an agency as we knew that the tenancy agreement had been operated fairly on behalf of the tenants. The rents had always been paid on the due dates. The property was professionally valeted by a contractor at the tenants expense and the condition of the property was improved over that which existed when the tenancy began. Allegatory and unsubstantiated comments about noise disturbance should not outweigh evidential substantiated information such as rent payments and professional cleaning receipts.These appear however to have been set aside and a "fail" issued purely on the basis of the allegatory statements. That cannot possibly be appropriate in terms of causing tenants to lose deposits and new property? If the landlord reverses there position and issues a satisfactory reference why should that not be taken into account with as much balance as the negative one?
An inventory check was made with all tenants , landlords, and parents present at which time a cross reference was made to a photographic inventory taken by the landlords. It was collectively and mutually agreed that the property was satisfactory and that the deposit would be returned. This decision has subsequently been renaged on by the landlords. There is no visible damage to the smoke alarm other than what the landlord claims is disconnected wiring. There is no evidential proof that the smoke alarm was in any way tampered with by the tenants. Electrical work was carried out in November last year and it is quite possible that the electrician forgot to connect the wiring ? I thought English law states that people are deemed innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.
If the landlord is alleging "deliberate damage" that surely implies criminal damage and as such the principle of innocent until proven guilty would apply?
I am a landlord myself operating a small portfolio of properties. I was under the impression that once I had agreed the check out inventory with my tenants I then could not start to retrospectively present claims at some point in the future to them. How can it be proven that these subsequent "claims" were not caused after the inventory check out? I thought that was the point of having an inventory check out and mutual agreement.
If the landlord reverses their reference to satisfactory then surely we should be able to reclaim any deposits paid to the letting agents? If there is no reference fail then what basis can the letting agents hold onto the deposits?
There is no evidence to support the wires have been "disconnected" only that they were not connected when inspected. That does not indicate a deliberate act of disconnection by the tenants surely?
This would not be a new reference but a revision of the original reference.If the landlord decides they have made an incorrect reference then how can the incorrect reference stay on record if they then correct it? If someone is accused of doing something and then it is proven they did not are we stating that they will still have a record of having been considered as having committed the offence ?
I still do not see how a landlord can realistically expect to validate a retrospective claim against a tenant once an inventory check has been agreed and the tenant moved out. If I hire a car and I return it to the hire company where it is inspected and checked back in then it is hardly reasonable to expect a call from that hire car company several days later claiming I had damaged the car. I would reasonably state that the damage was not there when the car was checked back in and therefore how can they prove that it was not dne after the vehicle was returned?
Forgive me for pressing these points its just that I want to fully understand and appreciate the logic and rationale regarding these issues to understand fully what our situation is in law. You are being very helpful in that regard