landlord charged after tenants moved out ???

[thewanderer]

We stayed in this HDB unit for a year and everything was fine, until the last month of tenancy the landlord keep come arrange for viewing when we were not at home and entered our room without permission, they also frightened us that we have breached the contract because the house dosent look clean as it was when they handed it to us . We found something stinky and decided not to pay the last month rental . The day we handover the unit back to them everything fine and clean, except the tap in one of the bathroom is a bit loose so we promised to send a plumber to fix it over the weekend . The contract was signed off after long hours of checking and stuff, we also told them that we didnt pay the last month rental so they just keep the deposit.

We left, after 2 days they texting us that they found the house was so dirty that they need to hire a maid to clean it ( we already hired a maid to clean before the handover ) and then something else has broken blah blah and they ask us to pay for that , they say we breached the contract by didnt pay the rental on time but they will forgive us if we paying for all the cleaning and fixing service ( that they found out 2 day after the handover of the house , which mean after the day we signed off the contract ) . We find it ridiculous and decided not to pay them a penny as we dit not damage anything, they can not anyhow make it up after we all moved out and the tenancy was so over . After a couple of days they sent us a msg saying that we will receive letter from the court soon as they already made a legal case against us Mad Mad Mad

So what do you guys think about this case? should we pay them or not ? i need some advice , thanks Quarrel

[PNGMK]

Have you had your deposit returned? If so, forget about it.

If not then read some of the other posts on recovering a deposit.

[thewanderer]

PNGMK wrote:
Have you had your deposit returned? If so, forget about it.

If not then read some of the other posts on recovering a deposit.
-----

They keep the deposit and we did not pay the last month rental, both sides agreed with it before we signed off the contract

[Beeroclock]

The contract was signed off after long hours of checking and stuff, we also told them that we didnt pay the last month rental so they just keep the deposit.

What exactly was signed off ? This could be important if you have a written confirmation they accepted the property handed back, then your position is very solid.

Either way IMO was a good move to hold back that last month rent and let them keep the deposit (although not strictly correct, but as you already informed them you were doing this at the check out).

My guess it's very likely a bluff/threat on the legal action to scare you into paying. I would wait for the letter first and take it from there, in the unlikely event you actually get one. The amount of this claim should be too little to make it viable to use a lawyer (the legal fees will be more). In any case from what you wrote you should be confident you are in the right and just defend yourself if needed. That's my advice, hope it helps

[sundaymorningstaple]

However, all bets are off if, as I read it, they informed the client that they didn't pay the last months rent and the owner kept the deposit in lieu of. Doesn't sound like the owners agreed to anything, all they could do was withhold the deposit. As the contract was initially broken by the tenants, then the landlord has every right to demand payment for damages. Whether or not a case can be made after the fact of the handover will depend, as already mentioned, on whether or not there was a signed handover statement clearing everything on the day of handover.

[thewanderer]

@Beeroclok @Sunday yes, there was a signed handover statement clearing everything on the day of handover.
Thanks you all for the helpful advices

[Beeroclock]

However, all bets are off if, as I read it, they informed the client that they didn't pay the last months rent and the owner kept the deposit in lieu of. Doesn't sound like the owners agreed to anything, all they could do was withhold the deposit. As the contract was initially broken by the tenants, then the landlord has every right to demand payment for damages. Whether or not a case can be made after the fact of the handover will depend, as already mentioned, on whether or not there was a signed handover statement clearing everything on the day of handover.

As I read the first breach of contract by the landlord entering the premises without permission and other suspicious behavior. This gave grounds for the tenant to withhold final rent in lieu of deposit, which he says was "agreed" by both sides before the "signed off". Definitely it will depend on what exactly was agreed, and if the OP has adequate evidence to support his case. But to me it seems like yet another case of landlord trying to squeeze money unfairly from tenant at end of lease......

[JR8]

The contract was signed off after long hours of checking and stuff, we also told them that we didnt pay the last month rental so they just keep the deposit.

Makes no sense

You pay your rent in advance. So, was your check-out inspection a month before you left, or were you a month of rent in arrears at the point of vacating?

A tenant is wrong (very) to somehow try and apply their deposit against final unpaid rent, not least as it is clearly in breach of contract.

[JR8]

As I read the first breach of contract by the landlord entering the premises without permission and other suspicious behavior. This gave grounds for the tenant to withhold final rent in lieu of deposit, which he says was "agreed" by both sides before the "signed off". Definitely it will depend on what exactly was agreed, and if the OP has adequate evidence to support his case. But to me it seems like yet another case of landlord trying to squeeze money unfairly from tenant at end of lease......

- The landlord has a right to enter at reasonable times, having given reasonable notice. He does not need permission to enter his own property (although such things might be considered polite).

- Even if LLs behaviour was found wanting, it does not grant the tenant a reciprocal right to throw the rule-book out the window and become an ass himself.

- The tenant would be acting as judge + jury if he thinks he can decide what events 'give him grounds'. A real judge would not look kindly on such a situation, at all.

- '''Sounds to me, yet again, to be a tenant who suspects his LL won't return his deposit, and so he doesn't pay his last months rent imagining they somehow legally offset each other'''. That is mistaken, as you'd find it if gets to court when your feet won't touch the ground.

[x9200]

As I read the first breach of contract by the landlord entering the premises without permission and other suspicious behavior. This gave grounds for the tenant to withhold final rent in lieu of deposit, which he says was "agreed" by both sides before the "signed off". Definitely it will depend on what exactly was agreed, and if the OP has adequate evidence to support his case. But to me it seems like yet another case of landlord trying to squeeze money unfairly from tenant at end of lease......

- The landlord has a right to enter at reasonable times, having given reasonable notice. He does not need permission to enter his own property (although such things might be considered polite).

OP says the LL entered when they were not present. If not specifically allowed in TA this would be or could be:
a) trespassing/breaking in
b) violation of peaceful enjoyment of the property
c) violation of privacy

- Even if LLs behaviour was found wanting, it does not grant the tenant a reciprocal right to throw the rule-book out the window and become an ass himself.

- The tenant would be acting as judge + jury if he thinks he can decide what events 'give him grounds'. A real judge would not look kindly on such a situation, at all.

- '''Sounds to me, yet again, to be a tenant who suspects his LL won't return his deposit, and so he doesn't pay his last months rent imagining they somehow legally offset each other'''. That is mistaken, as you'd find it if gets to court when your feet won't touch the ground.

I don't see it to happen. What do you expect the judge would rule to the LL? There are no damages. A compensation for the breach?

[thewanderer]

again 3 points to be clear :

- In the end of the day they keep our deposit , we did not pay last month rental . at this moment its 1:1 , nobody lose anything . deposit = 1 month rental

- There was a signed handover statement clearing everything on the day of handover. no damage.

- They made up some damages after the handover and requested for payment.

=> if the rental got anything to do with all those cluelessly made up damages then i will face the wall and slap myself . Thank u the laywer with the double post

[sundaymorningstaple]

As far as the LL entering when the tenants were not present, if the tenants were in arrears in their rent, then they breached the contract first, not the LL. The OP has stated they were showing it during the last month they were there, therefore they were already in breach of the contract. I think the Tenant will get shafted in the end for trying to pull a fast on on the LL.

Additionally, for all we know, based on what I've read from the tenant thus far, is that probably they always told the LL that they wouldn't be home therefore it was not convenient. I'm not sure who was out to shaft who. But in any case, the tenant breached the contract first.

[JR8]

@X9

Nope. A landlord makes an appointment with reasonable notice and a tenant can’t stop them. A LL can also act ‘in case of emergency’ when they can just walk right in.

I could say... ‘Right, I need to visit in 2 working days time at 10am'. Just because you aren’t there, or don’t like it, matters nought. Unless I’m making a habit of this to the extent of prejudicing your Quiet Enjoyment it’s all completely allowed.

Similarly during your last month, a landlord/agent can have 20 sets of people traipsing around your home per day. They can also do it too if you’re a tenant, and they’re trying to sell. There’s not a lot you can do (ref: back to seeking remedy/relief under QE).

[JR8]

And another thing:

The Angelic Tenant with: Oh we did no damage, we left it in better condition than we found it!!!'

Yeah, and then as landlord get a property back and find all the stuff they've tried to hide. The broken ice-box drawer in the fridge. The 1m*1m section of wall where a guest projectile vomited, painted in the wrong shade of 'Brilliant white'.

The melted/singed bit of carpet that was damaged when they were blow-drying their hair, and Stavros and Kevin decided to leap on them and give them a 'highlighting to remember'. Unfortunately 'Oh Stavros, Oh Kevin, what about the landlords carpet!' never seems to come into it'.

The tails of woe, the protests of 'it wasn't me, I didn't dun nuffink, it wasn't me, it's not my fault!' can be quite ... surprisingly creative.

[x9200]

JR8, yes, you can enter the premisses but you must have a valid reason. It is not by your "I wanna do it just because and you have to let me in". In every single TA I have seen so far there was a proper clause regulating this and it was there for a reason. Once again if not justified it simply violates the peaceful enjoyment and the privacy. It could cost you a lot if you entered without a valid reason and have a bit more legally aware tenant.

Digression: I don't know how is it in the UK but assuming it has to adhere to the EU law, if you would do anything like this without a proper agreement from the permanent occupant of the premisses you could be even arrested. It's a criminal offense.

SMS, "if". We don't now the TA and we don't know when the LL visited the flat when they were not around - it could be still within the paid period.