14:22 PM, 4th October 2016, About 6 years ago 36
A fellow landlord found themselves in the unenviable position of landing a tenant whose history was hidden but rapidly caught up with them after only 6 weeks in the property.
The paperwork was fine and the prospective tenant had a backstory worthy of Harry Pearce himself. Now, with 8 weeks hindsight the clues are there; I doubt a bank would have spotted them.
The tenant moved in without funds for rent and deposit being cleared. After a short delay and many attempts (apparently it’s the banks fault), the tenant’s father managed to make a payment to the landlord and the tenant called it ‘the deposit’.
No rent though. Apparently the tenant has as many difficulties with incompetent banks as the father.
The landlord hung on to the deposit outside the deposit scheme they usually use whilst the tenant made and broke many promises to pay rent. The landlord has their own cash flow to mind and was forced (by the need for their own survival) to pay their mortgage with some of the deposit.
But on day 31 of ‘the deposit’ being handed over the landlord was (and this is rather a strong word, I can think of no other) blackmailed regarding penalties as it wasn’t deposited within 31 days.
Still no rent.
So, my question is simple and in two parts…
The tenant has failed to pay any rent and the tenant’s bank continues to be incompetent (Apparently). Rent, by agreement should have been monthly in advance. Can a landlord re-label the money previously handed over as ‘the deposit’ to cover unpaid rent?
The landlord (is not me by the way) is seeking an eviction Section 8 – non-payment of rent, fraudulent references and two other unpleasant clauses. It is clear to me that this will go to the bailiff stage. The landlord will refuse to release the deposit, but they are desperately worried that the Deposit Scheme rules will find against them. Does anyone know what their view might be?