Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About DisgruntledTenant

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Same question... whats the latest? Last I heard the banks won the case at the high (crown?) court and no longer are liable for excessive fees, so this approach taken by powerplay may end up fruitless?
  2. Agreed. Have to say though, for the stresses it puts you through, I think I would have rather just lost £150 and gotten on with my life, rather than having 9 months of having this over my head.
  3. Hi all, I've been meaning to get back to everyone with my case details and how it worked out, but have only got around to it now. Details as follows. 1) Deposit never protected. 2) We recieved 95% of depost back over a month after we moved out (and only after sending a LBA threatening legal action) 3) LL kept 5% for a) the final inventory check which, according to out contract, was his to pay, b) "damages I am willing to forgo for the sake of closure" We then tried unsuccesfully to get this amount back, for the principal, and then lodged the claim to court.
  4. they cant do it unless you agree to it. Was your depost protected in a tenancy deposit scheme? If not sue the bastards I say!
  5. I wouldnt bother trying to argue with him. May help you vent some anger, but I would save your points for the judge. As for whether you have a case, if the deposit info hasnt been given, and the deposit hasnt been returned, bullet proof case as far as I am concerned. But I am not a lawyer.
  6. Your claim would be for your unreturned deposit amount + 3x the £2250. So potentially a max of £9000 only.
  7. Pretty sure all damages after that length of time would be under fair wear and tear. Especially the carpet. The life span of a carpet is only 7 years I believe, so should be replaced at no cost after that time. You should have a read of one of the blogs on this site http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk/blog.ihtml, scroll down till you find "Tenancy deposit arbitrations - why landlords keep losing" (might be on the second page). It states He makes the point first that the tenancy deposit belongs to the tenant, and the landlord, if he wants to make deductions, is making a claim which he w
  8. Not sure. An interesting debate I heard to this argument relates to the "if the grounds for the penalty are met, the court must order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, (or protect it)." In other words, if you follow the Act literally, the court must order the tenant to repay the money to themselves. It has no discretion around this due to the 'must'. (nonsensical but correct under the wording of the law). Therefore the must also for the second part would still apply.
  9. MrShed, dont get me wrong here, I'm not trying to have an argument with you on this, just playing a bit of devils advocate, as I'm curious to find your views on the defence that my LL is using to my case. And I appreciate your input! But if they protect it, the money is protected and no order can be given.... (the 14 days is irrelevant here I believe). Why wont the late protection protect them under HA2004? Can you explain this further? No problem. The Act states the following (summarised): 214(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if the grounds for awarding the penalt
  10. Well... they can return the full deposit easily enough. I did call one of the schemes to ask if the deposit can be protected after the tenancy has finished and they said it could, as long as the LL has the deposit it can be protected. But there are conflicting views as to whether this information is correct or not. What are your views on the 'must also' argument. ie, if the LL returns (or protects) the deposit, the court cant make an order under 214(3) and therefore cant 'also' order the fine? Am curious of your thoughts on this.
  11. MrShed, you make it sound so easy! What if the LL returns the deposit or protects the deposit before court?
  12. I'm trying to use this defence to the counterclaim to my TDS non-compliance claim also. From Stankova v Glassonbury In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies. Why should tenants have to face legal costs, and court and its associated stresses, and
  13. in other words, protecting the deposit includes providing the prescribed info to the tenant. you need to do both before court to avoid penalty
  • Create New...