How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask JGM Your Own Question
JGM, Solicitor
Category: Scots Law
Satisfied Customers: 12082
Experience:  30 years as a practising solicitor.
Type Your Scots Law Question Here...
JGM is online now

A problem that I am encountering with items on the inventory

Customer Question

A problem that I am encountering with items on the inventory is how deposit companies are calculating loss: A recent example is their assertion that a destroyed item would last for 3 years, that I had had the original for 2 years and marked down the loss at 1/3 of a nominal Argos cost (all with no references). Whereas the item was actually older but a ***** ***** item, which being furniture would have lasted indefinably (or until it was damaged by others) and the replacement quality & cost which was twice the Argos cost. There was also no mention of my time in life to obtain another or dispose of the original?
An associated problem arises with deposit companies (and tenants) simply ignoring preagreed inventory values and management charges, should they occur. Original implemented to avoid quantifying disputes and simplify post lease negotiations. My experience now is that deposit companies are simply ignoring the contractual value and inserting their own made up details (as above). Should deposit companies not be using the pre agreed value? Is there any point in then suing the tenants for breach of contract/bad faith/misleading me? Are deposit companies not supposed to
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Scots Law
Expert:  JGM replied 3 years ago.
Thank you for your question.
The problem here is that the deposit company is bound by the rules of the scheme. See this example and in particular rule 21.7.
That does not of course preclude you from suing in the court under the contract of lease, but the deposit company has regards ***** ***** rules of the scheme, not the lease, I'm afraid. You can argue with them but I doubt they will listen.
I hope this helps. Please leave a positive response so that I am credited for my time.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Which rule were you thinking about in particular? Are they not obliged to be correct to the law; is the contract not the law in this instance?

Expert:  JGM replied 3 years ago.
Rule 21.7.
You would like to think that they would follow the contract but they actually follow the rules of the scheme which is under the legislation. See The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and the 2011 Regulations concerning deposits.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Hmm, if the deposit company does arbitrate on the contract, can I have a separate deposit for the contract; as well as a deposit for the tenancy! SA

Expert:  JGM replied 3 years ago.
-Could you explain what you mean a little more?
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Well if the deposit company do not recognize management charges of my contract Perhaps I need a separate deposit on a separate contract for the management of the property?

Expert:  JGM replied 3 years ago.
That's sometimes done in commercial lease transactions. I've never come across it in residential leases but there's no reason in theory why not if the tenant is prepared to agree to it.