I don't know if anyone has heard of this before. I was intrigued and thought I'd post it here to see what others thought.
In July 2007 a work colleague of mine privately rented a studio flat (in Sheffield)- bathroom and toilet included- which was brand new at the time, he was the first tenant.
He and the landlord signed the tenancy agreement and £600 (the rent + plus bills payable by the tenant) stated on it, exchanged hands, half cheque (1st month's rent up front), half cash -the landlord never used the word 'bond' for this sum, but explained in some convoluted fashion that it was the second month's rolling rent?
He nevertheless signed up and moved in, thinking that as long as the signatures for the money were on the tenancy agreement, he would be ok and that he would get the £300 'bond' back.
No 'bond' meant no bond scheme for the landlord to put the money into (despite the new Private Landlord law of April 2007 whereby a bond must be placed into one of three schemes within 14 days!)
When it came time for him to move flats 18mths later (after a happy time there and having cared well for the place) with permission from the landlord after giving a month's written notice, he didn't receive his 'bond', as no such thing was payable on signing up!!
I, he, nor his lawyer (or anyone else!) have never even heard of this 'rolling rent' thing before?
So, all because of the 'bond' not officially being a 'bond' it has gone to the small claim's court, the landlord- who stubbornly refuses even now to accept that a bond was paid- is spitting feathers saying that he is being cheated and that he does not owe £300, nor was a bond paid?
Could £300 of the original sum (which, incidentally, the landlord mysteriously repaid £118 of!!?) be interpreted as being anything other than being a 'bond', despite the wording?
In July 2007 a work colleague of mine privately rented a studio flat (in Sheffield)- bathroom and toilet included- which was brand new at the time, he was the first tenant.
He and the landlord signed the tenancy agreement and £600 (the rent + plus bills payable by the tenant) stated on it, exchanged hands, half cheque (1st month's rent up front), half cash -the landlord never used the word 'bond' for this sum, but explained in some convoluted fashion that it was the second month's rolling rent?
He nevertheless signed up and moved in, thinking that as long as the signatures for the money were on the tenancy agreement, he would be ok and that he would get the £300 'bond' back.
No 'bond' meant no bond scheme for the landlord to put the money into (despite the new Private Landlord law of April 2007 whereby a bond must be placed into one of three schemes within 14 days!)
When it came time for him to move flats 18mths later (after a happy time there and having cared well for the place) with permission from the landlord after giving a month's written notice, he didn't receive his 'bond', as no such thing was payable on signing up!!
I, he, nor his lawyer (or anyone else!) have never even heard of this 'rolling rent' thing before?
So, all because of the 'bond' not officially being a 'bond' it has gone to the small claim's court, the landlord- who stubbornly refuses even now to accept that a bond was paid- is spitting feathers saying that he is being cheated and that he does not owe £300, nor was a bond paid?
Could £300 of the original sum (which, incidentally, the landlord mysteriously repaid £118 of!!?) be interpreted as being anything other than being a 'bond', despite the wording?
