In addition to the obvious differences between HMO and standard real estate holdings, there are several potential difficulties that can catch an unsuspecting owner or agent. Some of these problems are only evident at the end of the lease when a deposit claim is rejected, claims that could have succeeded if the same dispute had occurred within the context of a standard lease agreement.
The dispute
The case study of this month covers one of those scenarios. A tenant interested in a room on a HMO property under the agreement that public services would be included within the monthly rental amount. However, the lease agreement also contained a reasonable use policy, stipulating that the tenant would be responsible for any combined cost of public services services that prevent £ 30.00 per month.
Evidence
At the end of the lease, the owner filed a claim that the reasonable use had been exceeded from possession. The support statements had been provided to both gas and electricity suppliers that show the monthly invoices paid by the owner. As there was only a measured gas and electricity supply, the owner declared that the accumulated flow or £ 630.00 was the same division between the four occupants of the property at that time and that they joined and Sevally responsible for these costs.
At this stage, it is important to highlight a critical distinction. The claim was related only to the lease of a single room, and all the tenure documentation, including the lease agreement and the check-in and check-out reports were not alone in the name of this individual tenant. As a result, it was not possible to hold this tenant responsible for the obligations established in the lease agreements separated from the other occupants. In addition, the other tenants in the property may have had lease agreements with different dates of starting and completion, different duration or even reasonable use limits stipulated in their respects of respect. The use of public services of each individual tenant may differ significantly, for example, the amount of time spent working at home, cargo, etc.
The result
While it was evident that the owner had covered the costs of public services during the duration of the lease in question, it was not possible for the judge to determine the responsibility of the specific tenant, if he does, for the excess of penalty. Since the claim was based on an assumption of joint inhalation responsibility, the judge could not make an award, and the deposit was returned to the tenant.
So what are the key points here?
+ While he may not have a feasible leg in this scenario, having joint possession with all the tenants appointed under the same agreement would have joined them to the same set of Bligations. Therefore, they would have a joint and severrally responsible bone responsible for any pending cost provided that this washing is within this agreement; A deduction for signaling would have a valid leg.
+ While separate holdings within the context of a HMO offer a degree of flexibility, the payment of public services can become a problem in a property that only has a measured supply.
+ Following the thesis councils and using a confidence deposit protection scheme such as the possession deposit scheme, the owners and the rental agents can ensure that the disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.
If you are interested in a greater orientation related to deposit disputes, visit the Help Center in TDS to explore more guides.
Sandy Bastin is a resolution director at TDS Award of Services – The only scheme of non -profit tension deposit protection.
