One of the most tense moments at the end of a rental agreement is the return of the security deposit. Unfortunately, it is a far too common practice for some landlords to look for last-minute excuses not to return the money that legitimately belongs to the tenant.
The conflict: «I'm not giving anything back»
Our client had rented commercial premises, for which they paid a deposit of 1,300 euros at the time. When the time came, both parties agreed to terminate the contract on 1 November 2022. The handover of keys was signed and possession of the property was returned without the landlord raising any objections at that time.
However, days passed and the deposit didn't materialise. When our client enquired about it, the owning company started to bring up a list of issues they had never mentioned before at the time of handover:
- They claimed that a monthly payment from two years prior was due (from the second quarter of 2020).
- They said that part of the deposit (£650) had never been paid in cash.
- They were demanding almost 400 euros for alleged damage to the premises, such as locks and lights, and for cleaning hours.
Our strategy: dismantling excuses
From FA Lawyers We knew the law was on our side, but we had to prove it to the judge. It wasn't enough to be right; we had to demonstrate the landlord's inconsistency.
1. The mystery of ghost debt
The landlord claimed that our client owed rent from the year 2020. However, we demonstrated something fundamental to the judge: when they signed the contract termination agreement, the landlord made no claim. What's more, they couldn't even specify which particular month was allegedly owed. The judge ruled in our favour: no claim had been made during the term of the contract.
2. Payment by merchandise is a valid payment.
The opposing party tried to argue that half of the bail should not be returned because it had been agreed that it would be paid with «business merchandise» and not in cash. Our team argued a basic principle: no one can go against their own actions. If the owner agreed to accept payment in merchandise at the time, that payment has been made. You cannot charge twice for the same thing.
3. The neighbour's «damage» and fire
Perhaps the most critical point was the landlord's attempt to charge for repairs, including a lock change made two months after our client had left.
Our defence was forceful and included key testimony from the current tenant of the premises. Thanks to our intervention, it was proven that the damage to the premises was not our client's fault, but the consequence of a fire that had occurred months earlier in an adjacent property. The attempt to blame our client for damages caused by others was completely dismantled.
The outcome: a total victory for the client
The Court of First Instance and Investigation No. 08 of Navalcarnero issued Sentence No. 3/2024, upholding our claim in its entirety. The outcome could not have been better for our client:
- Fine the owning company to Return the full 1,300 euros.
- Pago de los legal interests generated from 1 November 2022.
- Conviction in CoastThe owner had to pay the court costs.
This case demonstrates that, when faced with abuse, resignation is not an option. Many tenants resign themselves to losing their deposit due to landlords' threats or excuses, but with the right advice, these arguments crumble in court.
En FA Lawyers We analysed your contract and devised a winning strategy for you to reclaim what is yours, just as we did with this client.