Hello
Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.

Here is the scenario.

Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and 
pay deposit.
Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
Tenancy ends.
Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
Many weeks pass.
Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and 
produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house 
as filthy.
(Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone number.)
Parents suffer minor stroke.
=======

I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right, you 
decide:

Landlord has many properties.
Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can paint 
over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on landlord's 
properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra cleaning."
Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is invoiced out 
to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.

Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can 
landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp 
practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
Many thanks in advance.


Irate Dad.

hj wrote:
> Hello
> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.
> 
> Here is the scenario.
> 
> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and 
> pay deposit.
> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
> Tenancy ends.
> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
> Many weeks pass.
> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and 
> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house 
> as filthy.
> (Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone number.)
> Parents suffer minor stroke.
> =======
> 
> I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right, you 
> decide:
> 
> Landlord has many properties.
> Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can paint 
> over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
> Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on landlord's 
> properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra cleaning."
> Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is invoiced out 
> to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.
> 
> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can 
> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp 
> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
> Many thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Irate Dad.
> 

Ask for a VAT receipt. That should do it!

On Sep 12, 4:15 pm, hj  wrote:
> Hello
> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.
>
> Here is the scenario.
>
> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and
> pay deposit.
> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
> Tenancy ends.
> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
> Many weeks pass.
> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house
> as filthy.
> (Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone number.)
> Parents suffer minor stroke.
> =======
>
> I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right, you
> decide:
>
There will be a very good argument against the landlord if the tenancy
started after April 2007 (which sounds likely). You should read up on
the tenancy deposit scheme requirements which are designed to protect
tenants in situations exactly like this. Have a look at sections 212
onwards from the Housing Act 2004. Look it up at www.statutelaw.gov.uk.
There may be damages payable depending on what the landlord has done
(or failed to do).

Far from a perfect scam.

> Landlord has many properties.
> Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can paint
> over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
> Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on landlord's
> properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra cleaning."
> Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is invoiced out
> to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.
>
> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can
> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp
> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Irate Dad.

"hj"  wrote in message 
news:48ca86a4$0$2923$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
> Many weeks pass.
> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and produces 
> large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house as filthy.

If this ever goes to court, the court will look at the evidence. The 
landlord will say the place was filthy, and he'll have dave's very helpful 
invoice. Dave probably won't be there. The students will say the place was 
spotless, but the judge will think 'Ha students - their idea of spotless is 
not the same as mine!'

At that point, you turn up your photographic evidence, maybe? Or you saw the 
place and thought it was spotless, or ....?

For a civil case, the standard of proof required is 'balance of 
probabilities'.

>
> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can landlord 
> be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp practice? And 
> is there a technical term for this scam?

Well, if it's as you put it, I guess (I'm not a lawyer) it's fraud. That 
would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, though, as one 
person's idea of clean is not the same as another's. If you had overheard 
Dave and the landlord conspiring together, then maybe ...

> Irate Dad.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:35:05 +0100, GB wrote:

> 
> If this ever goes to court, the court will look at the evidence. The
> landlord will say the place was filthy, and he'll have dave's very
> helpful invoice. Dave probably won't be there. The students will say the
> place was spotless, but the judge will think 'Ha students - their idea
> of spotless is not the same as mine!'
> 
> At that point, you turn up your photographic evidence, maybe? Or you saw
> the place and thought it was spotless, or ....?
> 
> For a civil case, the standard of proof required is 'balance of
> probabilities'.
> 

Always, always, always take pictures for proof, both when you move in and 
when you move out. Make sure you take pictures of you cleaning up, with 
some proof of date such as a newspaper in the picture.

I know of a landlord who seemed perfectly reasonable but on leaving he 
went through the initial inventory with a fine toothed comb and was 
trying to get every last penny he could.

Unfortunately his wife was there as well and every time (of many many 
times) he said 'where's the full six setting cutlery set that's on the 
inventory gone then?' she would pipe up with 'but Peter, we never got 
round to getting that for them, did we? I remember going on at you about 
it'.

Nice lady. ;->

He claimed to be a deeply religious person as well... obviously missed 
the point somewhat.

Scary Lee wrote:
> On Sep 12, 4:15 pm, hj  wrote:
>> Hello
>> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.
>>
>> Here is the scenario.
>>
>> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and
>> pay deposit.
>> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
>> Tenancy ends.
>> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
>> Many weeks pass.
>> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
>> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house
>> as filthy.
>> (Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone number.)
>> Parents suffer minor stroke.
>> =======
>>
>> I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right, you
>> decide:
>>
> 
> 
>> Landlord has many properties.
>> Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can paint
>> over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
>> Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on landlord's
>> properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra cleaning."
>> Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is invoiced out
>> to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.
>>
>> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can
>> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp
>> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Irate Dad.
> 
> =========
There will be a very good argument against the landlord if the tenancy
 > started after April 2007 (which sounds likely). You should read up on
 > the tenancy deposit scheme requirements which are designed to protect
 > tenants in situations exactly like this. Have a look at sections 212
 > onwards from the Housing Act 2004. Look it up at www.statutelaw.gov.uk.
 > There may be damages payable depending on what the landlord has done
 > (or failed to do).
 >
 > Far from a perfect scam.

==============
I wish it were so. But the deposit was paid over in February 2007 
against the July letting, (and eventually returned in part in September 
2008 (ie held for 19 months). This is in the nature of the student 
letting contract. A double deposit is held for half the year, one from 
the outgoing tenants, and one from the prospective tenants. Nice work! 
Things will have changed a bit since then, but not by much.

In effect the money involved is trivial since it is shared between seven 
students. In fact it's just a small £35 theft from each individual.
Maybe the best thing to do is to write the whole thing up carefully on 
the web as a narrative, as a caution to potential future tenants on what 
to expect with this particular company. Certainly not worth stressing about.

Many thanks for your reply. Good to let off a bit of steam.

GB wrote:
> "hj"  wrote in message 
> news:48ca86a4$0$2923$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
>> Many weeks pass.
>> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and produces 
>> large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house as filthy.
> 
> If this ever goes to court, the court will look at the evidence. The 
> landlord will say the place was filthy, and he'll have dave's very helpful 
> invoice. Dave probably won't be there. The students will say the place was 
> spotless, but the judge will think 'Ha students - their idea of spotless is 
> not the same as mine!'
> 
> At that point, you turn up your photographic evidence, maybe? Or you saw the 
> place and thought it was spotless, or ....?
> 
> For a civil case, the standard of proof required is 'balance of 
> probabilities'.
> 
>> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can landlord 
>> be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp practice? And 
>> is there a technical term for this scam?
> 
> Well, if it's as you put it, I guess (I'm not a lawyer) it's fraud. That 
> would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, though, as one 
> person's idea of clean is not the same as another's. If you had overheard 
> Dave and the landlord conspiring together, then maybe ...
> 
>> Irate Dad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
I dearly wish they had protected themselves with some evidence. Even now 
I could tiptoe back there and interview the latest batch on the quality 
of their experience. In fact with a bit of searching in Google on the 
name of the cleaning company I discovered another former tenant who 
tells a similar tale, where his Mum was in attendance and supervised the 
cleaning personally, and yet they still stripped £300 from them.
I am tempted to beard "Dave" (over the phone), extract some telling 
quotes, and put the wind up the lot of them for a day or two, maybe hurl 
some mud at them online. It's risky though, dealing with millionaire 
property developers, even if they are no better than cheap hoods. And 
no-one likes what amounts to threatening professional reputations.
As I replied to Scary Lee, I feel a bit better now, just getting it off 
my chest to you, for which much thanks. The offspring will be more 
careful next time.

hj wrote:
> Scary Lee wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 4:15 pm, hj  wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little
>>> scam. Here is the scenario.
>>>
>>> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord"
>>> and pay deposit.
>>> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
>>> Tenancy ends.
>>> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
>>> Many weeks pass.
>>> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
>>> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing
>>> house as filthy.
>>> (Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone
>>> number.) Parents suffer minor stroke.
>>> =======
>>>
>>> I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right,
>>> you decide:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Landlord has many properties.
>>> Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can
>>> paint over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
>>> Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on
>>> landlord's properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra
>>> cleaning." Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is 
>>> invoiced
>>> out to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.
>>>
>>> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can
>>> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp
>>> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
>>> Many thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Irate Dad.
>>
>> =========
> There will be a very good argument against the landlord if the tenancy
>> started after April 2007 (which sounds likely). You should read up on
>> the tenancy deposit scheme requirements which are designed to protect
>> tenants in situations exactly like this. Have a look at sections 212
>> onwards from the Housing Act 2004. Look it up at
>> www.statutelaw.gov.uk. There may be damages payable depending on
>> what the landlord has done (or failed to do).
>>
>> Far from a perfect scam.
>
> ==============
> I wish it were so. But the deposit was paid over in February 2007
> against the July letting, (and eventually returned in part in
> September 2008 (ie held for 19 months). This is in the nature of the
> student letting contract. A double deposit is held for half the year, one 
> from
> the outgoing tenants, and one from the prospective tenants. Nice work!
> Things will have changed a bit since then, but not by much.
>
> In effect the money involved is trivial since it is shared between
> seven students. In fact it's just a small £35 theft from each
> individual. Maybe the best thing to do is to write the whole thing up 
> carefully on
> the web as a narrative, as a caution to potential future tenants on
> what to expect with this particular company. Certainly not worth stressing
> about.
> Many thanks for your reply. Good to let off a bit of steam.

Can't the tenants simply write to the landlord demanding a refund of their 
deposit (on the basis that the property was left in a clean and tidy state) 
and if necessary sue in the County Court? Have they at least tried a 
threatening letter?

hj wrote:
> GB wrote:
>> "hj"  wrote in message
>> news:48ca86a4$0$2923$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
>>> Many weeks pass.
>>> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
>>> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing
>>> house as filthy.
>>
>> If this ever goes to court, the court will look at the evidence. The
>> landlord will say the place was filthy, and he'll have dave's very
>> helpful invoice. Dave probably won't be there. The students will say
>> the place was spotless, but the judge will think 'Ha students -
>> their idea of spotless is not the same as mine!'
>>
>> At that point, you turn up your photographic evidence, maybe? Or you
>> saw the place and thought it was spotless, or ....?
>>
>> For a civil case, the standard of proof required is 'balance of
>> probabilities'.
>>
>>> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can
>>> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp
>>> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
>>
>> Well, if it's as you put it, I guess (I'm not a lawyer) it's fraud.
>> That would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, though,
>> as one person's idea of clean is not the same as another's. If you
>> had overheard Dave and the landlord conspiring together, then maybe
>> ...
>>> Irate Dad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I dearly wish they had protected themselves with some evidence.

The concept of "evidence" is often misunderstood. You don't need 
photographs.  It is often quite sufficient to have one or more people 
testifying as to what they remember.

I think I'd demand a refund and (so long as there was at least one person 
willing if necessary to give evidence in court, in a comfortable little room 
before a friendly District Judge) sue in the County Court.

> For a civil case, the standard of proof required is 'balance of 
> probabilities'.

There was some discussion on the burdens of proof in the thread entitled 
"deposit return on property lease" a while back.

In message <48caed68$0$2917$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, at 23:35:05 on 
Fri, 12 Sep 2008, GB  remarked:

>one person's idea of clean is not the same as another's.

Sadly, this asymmetry is also evident amongst employees of the same 
agency. When you move in they laugh off windows that have clearly not 
been cleaned for months, but when you move out a different employee 
expects them to be clean enough to eat your dinner off. I have a feeling 
that the only way round this is to take photos (maybe even a video) on 
the day when you move in with the agent's employee being asked to 
comment on the state of things.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sep 12, 4:15 pm, hj  wrote:
> Hello
> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.
>
> Here is the scenario.
>
> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and
> pay deposit.
> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
> Tenancy ends.
> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
> Many weeks pass.
> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house
> as filthy.


Are you sure it was the landlord?  there have been cases reported here
where someone in letting agent's office   a scam like this and the
landlord, and indeed the agency, know nothing about it.

Robert

On 12 Sep, 23:40, hj  wrote:
> Scary Lee wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 4:15 pm, hj  wrote:
> >> Hello
> >> Your opinions would be most welcome on what may be a common little scam.
>
> >> Here is the scenario.
>
> >> Young tenants rent Leeds student property from "reputable landlord" and
> >> pay deposit.
> >> Students study tirelessly and pay hefty fees to university.
> >> Tenancy ends.
> >> Tenants scrub up house spotlessly before vacating and hand in keys.
> >> Many weeks pass.
> >> Landlord retains bulk or all of deposit for "extra cleaning" and
> >> produces large invoice from "Dave's Cleaning Services" describing house
> >> as filthy.
> >> (Dave's invoice is run off on PC and includes only mobile phone number> >> Parents suffer minor stroke.
> >> =======
>
> >> I think this is how it works, I could be wrong, I could be right, you
> >> decide:
>
> >> Landlord has many properties.
> >> Dave works exclusively for landlord. Dave is multiskilled and can paint
> >> over damp patches and repair boilers with recycled parts.
> >> Dave does all routine cleaning and other bits and pieces on landlord's
> >> properties, but only ever invoices landlord for "extra cleaning."
> >> Hence all of Dave's labour for routine maintenance work is invoiced out
> >> to tenants and paid for out of their deposits.
>
> >> Is this the perfect scam? Can Dave be got by IR for example? Can
> >> landlord be got in a sting? Is it theft, embezzlement or just sharp
> >> practice? And is there a technical term for this scam?
> >> Many thanks in advance.
>
> >> Irate Dad.
>
> > =========
>
> There will be a very good argument against the landlord if the tenancy
>  > started after April 2007 (which sounds likely). You should read up on
>  > the tenancy deposit scheme requirements which are designed to protect
>  > tenants in situations exactly like this. Have a look at sections 212
>  > onwards from the Housing Act 2004. Look it up atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk.
>  > There may be damages payable depending on what the landlord has done
>  > (or failed to do).
>  >
>  > Far from a perfect scam.
>
> ==============
> I wish it were so. But the deposit was paid over in February 2007
> against the July letting, (and eventually returned in part in September
> 2008 (ie held for 19 months). This is in the nature of the student
> letting contract. A double deposit is held for half the year, one from
> the outgoing tenants, and one from the prospective tenants. Nice work!
> Things will have changed a bit since then, but not by much.
>
> In effect the money involved is trivial since it is shared between seven
> students. In fact it's just a small £35 theft from each individual.
> Maybe the best thing to do is to write the whole thing up carefully on
> the web as a narrative, as a caution to potential future tenants on what
> to expect with this particular company. Certainly not worth stressing about.
>
> Many thanks for your reply. Good to let off a bit of steam.

I might ask the same question here:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=82bec736fbecafe9feb9e13dbd253a77&daysprune=&f=11

And regarding the deposit, if the tenancy started after April 2007
then you may have a case. My understanding is you can sue for 3x the
deposit if it was not protected. Merely the threat to do that may be
enough to scare the landlord into returning the deposit.

I'd personally take it further.... a letter might be in order.