A couple of days of ago we were rushed into paying a holding deposit for a rental property. We have cold feet about the place – can STW’s legal beagles advise whether we can demand the return of said deposit. We have not signed anything…

I don’t see why you should expect it back. The landlord may have turned away others to let you reserve it, and may now have an unexpected empty period together with remarketing costs. Nothing to stop you asking of course, but this seems exactly the situation a holding deposit might be for.

Isn’t the point of a holding deposit that you only get it back if you take the place and forfeit it if you don’t?

ask your self what was the point of the holding deposit?

You aren’t entitled to getting it back, but you can only ask.

If he can find someone else quickly and not end up out of pocket he might give you your deposit back.

Aside from the flaming trend emerging; consider carefully whether cold feet are justified. You might well be knackered on getting it back (a lawyer has already commented here) but maybe you should question whether cold feet are just simply that, or maybe there is genuine reason to doubt you are being rented a pup, in which case compile a considered and factual request to back out, base on undisclosed info etc.

IMO, not a lawyer btw, it is unreasonable to hold on to the full deposit no matter how the contract is agreed, especially in your case.

There might be “administrative” charges but certainly not forfeiting the full deposit and the “administrative” charges must be reasonable within the industry.

The opportunity cost of turning others away is simply just an opportunity cost. i.e. a prediction or projection or forecast. They need to proof that they actually turn others away.

Even if they do then perhaps you should ask why others were turn away? Because it does not make sense to favour you and not others. i.e. are other people being turn away because they are going to pay in Peso or some weird currencies? If that is the case then there is no opportunity cost. The question then should be why the others were turn away in favour of you? Are you more gullible? Have you been coerced in agreeing? Even if you got cold feet now it only proof that you were not certain from the start go.

Yes, you should be able to get back your deposit minus “admin” charges.

In your situation the forfeiting of the full deposit is simply due to greed. There is no justification at all.

The law should be fair and not one sided. Paying “admin” charges is fair but forfeiting all deposit the law of the land is kucfed.

Don’t stand for it. The law should be fair and should not to be the instrument of bullies.

🙄

Thanks for the replies – I was in the pub so missed them last night.
My question wasn’t whether I was in the right (I know I’m not). My question was whether, without a signature, I had any wriggle room.

To me the point of a holding deposit is I pay some money so you stop marketing it to anyone else and reject any other applications.
For that I agree that if I turn it down I lose the money.

So if I accept a holding deposit for someone for a flat, car, bike, etc if they don’t want it I keep the money.

Not user why I should just give it back if you don’t want to take it, seems to kind of take the point away ?

Edit – just read your last post, from a legal point of view I haven’t a clue

My question was whether, without a signature, I had any wriggle room.

You don’t need a signature for a contract to be valid. A verbal agreement is acceptable.

well last time I had to rent a house i got gazumped after I paid my holding deposit. The diference being theres very little i could do about it, although I think legaly I could have demanded liquidated damages from the landlord it wasnt worth the hastle.

contractually you dont need to sign anything, the fact you knew it was a holding deposit and paid it is enough to form a contract. So basicly you’re reliant on their goodwill now. Unless you can provevyou were somehow either coerced into it, or when you recieve the contract its grossly unfair and you couldnt be expected to sign it. The only other way out I can see is if the deposit is disproportionately large (like several times more than the expected loss of rent if you pulled out) then you could convince a judge that it was a penalty, which wouldn’t be legal.

So your options are either their goodwill, or argue about it in the small claims court if you think theres any case.

My question wasn’t whether I was in the right (I know I’m not). My question was whether, without a signature, I had any wriggle room.

So basically, you have come for advide as to how you can cheat people out of money?

I’ll happily give you a hand – just send £10 via paypal gift and I promise to tell you the answer.

My question was whether, without a signature, I had any wriggle room.

My question is whether, without a signature theres any proof of how much you’ve paid of for what.

You don’t have a leg to stand on, you can ask for it back and be surprised if you get any or all. You can’t expect anything though.

As a landlord my experience of this in the past, is that if have been able to rent the place for the same period, I just remove costs and return the difference.

But since the tenancy deposit scheme things have changed.

So I would try and leverage the tenancy deposit scheme because in the law these days a deposit is protected (unless it is rent).

The chances are the agent/landlord is useless and not familiar with the law, so if you say and do nothing, wait 30 days for them to protect it, then you can start the process of claiming it back through the TDS.
If they do not protect it correctly (which is likely nobody gets it right), and give you the proscribed info in 30 days, they are in the shit anyway and you can claim 3x the deposit.

A holding deposit is not the same as a security/breakages/condition deposit. There is no need for it to be protected in one of the deposit protection scheme since no tenancy exists.

It is highly unreasonable to take full deposit.

At least toys19 has tiny moral fiber left ” … remove costs and return the difference.”

No matter how you see it not returning full deposit is absolutely wrong. Especially, if you have not moved in.

🙄

chewkw thanks for the compliment.
I would ask what is the point of a holding deposit, and what you would expect its mechanism to be?

midlife, good point..

Even if they do then perhaps you should ask why others were turn away? Because it does not make sense to favour you and not others. i.e. are other people being turn away because they are going to pay in Peso or some weird currencies? If that is the case then there is no opportunity cost. The question then should be why the others were turn away in favour of you? Are you more gullible? Have you been coerced in agreeing? Even if you got cold feet now it only proof that you were not certain from the start go.

Other people were turned away because the OP was first to pay the holding deposit.

I’m a landlord and if I was out of pocked because the expected tenant pulled out I would ensure my costs were covered by the holding deposit. If the property was rented straight away to another tenant I would refund the holding deposit.

It is highly unreasonable to take full deposit.

Why? You don’t know how much the full deposit is and what additional costs are incurred.

chewkw – Member
IMO, not a lawyer btw

The only worththwile part of that post.

You paid it. Bloody immoral to even think about asking for it back. Of course the law may say other wise but since when has the law made sense or been right.