Special clause in lease

[NDynamite]

Hi there, I will be brief and to the point.

We have a case [PRTB] against a landlord who witheld deposit (and on top demanded a huge payment based on alleged damage). He bases this on a special clause in the lease that he added. The clause is that we agree to forfeit all of our deposit in the event that we breach one of the other clauses.

He waited and avoided us (uncontactable and didn't show to return deposit / swap keys)until we left the property and then hit us with this and a long list of damages that are non-existent.

Is there any legal basis to the clause he put in the lease?
I want to know my stuff inside out when I tackle the case as if he attempts this with us he will continue with others.
For context:
We did breach one clause and agreed amicably to pay for it, he agreed to pay half of this cost (300) as we left the place in good condition. This was verbally before the written communication which arrived a month later.

Anyway - thoughts on the clause? (I know we should have read it on moving in!)

 

[Bronte]

Presumably if it's in the contract and you agreed to it then is is valid. Unless under some part of the the Tenancies Act this would be invalid is the only way the PRTB can strike it out.

Did you take pictures of the condition you left it in? What is the list of damages he is claiming?

 

[NDynamite]

Hey there,
"promptly refund deposits unless rent is owing or there is
damage beyond normal wear and tear" is the relevant line I think from the Tenancy Act.

If his clause was deemed legal, then for example if a tenant was late once with rent, he would legally be allowed to keep the entire deposite as they would have breached one clause. That just doesn't seem correct?

The list is long and random - like missing clock, no return of keys - changing locks, missing cutlery etc, it goes on and on. It's all completely fabricated. We have photos on leaving as he was uncontactable we started to get suspicious.

Cheers.

 

[facetious]

Basically, a landlord may only retain a part or all of the deposit to cover any loss in the case of rent arrears, damage in excess on normal wear and tear or outstanding utility bills for which the tenant was liable.

The clause is that we agree to forfeit all of our deposit in the event that we breach one of the other clauses.

Without knowing the exact wording of the clause it is difficult to say anything more. What you have written is, I assume, your brief description of the clause.

Taking an example: if the lease agreement has a clause saying no pets allowed and you had a small dog.
The PRTB will only consider any damage that might have resulted in having the dog in the property. This may include actual damage to furniture, floors etc as well as having to have the property professionally cleaned to eradicate any traces of dog hair/smell that might affect a future tenant who could be allergic to dog hairs.

IMHO, in a PRTB dispute, just by having a pet in the house, although a breach of the conditions of the lease, would not, in itself, render the forfeiture of the deposit, under the type of clause that you have described, as the landlord has to be able to prove a "loss".

Again, IMHO, in the case of a clause prohibiting smoking, the landlord may be able to claim from the deposit for repainting and professional cleaning in order to remove any trace of the smoking. Smoke can cling to furniture coverings, carpets, curtains etc, as well as discolouring painted walls and ceilings. The landlord may only retain any portion of the deposit to cover the expenses of remedying the above but cannot blankly state that because the clause prohibiting smoking was breached he will retain the full deposit.

 

[NDynamite]

Thanks for the replies people.

It presumably will all come down to paying for the one item, which we agreed to pay for in the first place.

This really isn't worth my time, but I aim to waste as much of his time as possible and his lawyer. I don't expect him to pay up if we get a positive ruling but I have read you can put barring orders etc when a person is selling/buying a property etc, if they have not complied with a court ruling.

We were good tenants and spent about a day cleaning the place when we left, we even bought oven cleaner and did the oven!