Jump to content

DisgruntledTenant

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DisgruntledTenant

  1. Do you have a copy of this Legal Action Law I could get off you? In a similar situation. How did yours work out? Thanks!
  2. Just wondering peoples views on the following: (3)The court must, as it thinks fit, either— (a)&(b) (4)The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. Do the words 'as it sees fit' mean that the Court could see it fit that an order for the deposit to be returned need not be placed based on the fact the deposit has already been returned. But then it MUST order (4). Is this one possible way of reading it? Thoughts? These words give it some leeway on 214(3) dont you think? It could be argued I guess that they are redundant, but they must be there for a reason right?
  3. Thanks Gaskie, I guess one thing I have on my side is that the LL never actually protected the deposit, he just returned it, so all those above sections still apply. We're trying to get the defence struck out before going to court and he hasnt mentioned any of this is his defence, so fingers crossed we'll be ok. Go get yourself a beer and relax. At least its now all behind you.
  4. Gaskie, that sucks! Now I'm really worried. My LL returned the full deposit after the claim was initiated, so I guess that puts me in the same boat. He hasnt mentioned it in his defence though, so hopefully he hasnt thought about it that much, or his lawyer isnt all that smart. He has claimed that he has returned the deposit, but hasnt made the link. Did your ll explicitly say in his written defence that (4) couldnt be awarded if (3) couldnt? Mine hasnt... Any chance this will help?
  5. Do you have a tenancy agreement stating and proof that you have paid the deposit? If so it should have been protected and you should be able to claim against the LL.
  6. Thanks again Steve. I realise its risky, but think the balance of probability here is in our favour. The payment of the deposit doesnt address the non-compliance issue. Its not a recommendation now is it Thats the way I see it, but I guess a judge could see it other ways...
  7. Thanks for these raydetinu. These cases show that if a deposit is protected (albiet late), this is sufficient for a LL to escape the mandatory fine. Although a couple of cases have gone the other way. What if the deposit is returned to the LL, still without the protection, surely a tenant in this situation is in a much much stronger place due to the non-compliance being without doubt?
  8. Will be interesting to see how the judge interprets it... I've heard of it going both ways. Someone even mention (I cant remember who) that there have been 18 cases like this go through the courts, with 12 going in favour of the claimant and 6 with the defendant. I've been trying to get ahold of the 12 to include as evidence but havent been able to find anything.
  9. Yes... that word 'also'. I have been deliberating over the same issue. I take it your LL is using the technicality that because he has returned the deposit, the judge cant order (3)(a) or (3)(b), so therefore cant order (4), because he believes the word also means they must either both order or neither ordered. The HA2004 reads: (3)The court must, as it thinks fit, either— (a)&(b) (4)The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. My view is that the words "as it thinks fit" remove this technicality. The court may see it that the deposit has been returned and therefore not require it to be paid back again. So basically, have the requirements been met? If no, then 3 and 4 apply. If 3 and 4 apply, the judge must as it sees fit order the return of the deposit etc. And he must order the penalty. I've read elsewhere that the payment of the deposit does not remove his liability for the non-compliance. In my view, the claim is really all about the non-compliance. Did he comply? no... then penalty. Its nothing to do with the money being returned. The scheme isnt a recommendation, its a statutory obligation. Hope this helps. My landlord is attempting the same defence, we're just a bit behind you though. Let us know how you get on and good luck!
  10. This is exactly the question I've been trying to find an answer too! Anybody?
  11. What if the landlord holds onto the deposit for 4 months before returing it. Are you saying this is ok? Are you also saying that a landlord doenst actually have to meet his statutory obilgations and can simply not put the deposit into a scheme until the tenant takes him to court? Are you saying the TDS is simply a recommendation for LL's?
  12. Thanks.... the question is more around post tenancy, if the LL returns the part or all of the deposit, after not protecting it. Is the claim against the LL under this circumstance and absolute claim, ie the return of the deposit hasnt removed the liability of the LL. This is been mentioned a few times around here. What is the legal basis behind this?
  13. Hi there, its been mentioned on here a few times that any claim for non-compliance of the TDS is an absolute claim and any deposit received back is irrelevant. Is there a legal basis for this that I can refer to in a court of law? Thanks!
  14. Thanks Steve, thats very helpful In regards to the above. Is there a legal backing to this that I can refer to in Court? In regards to striking out the claim, I gave the courts a call and their view is that you need to submit a N244 form which covers this.
  15. Just wondering on what grounds you can apply for a LL's defence to a TDS to be struck out? Mine has stated his defence as follows: 1) That he isnt the LL (Even though he owns the property and received the rent), 2) In his defence he paid back the remaining deposit and now says that the Tenants are no longer entitled to an award. BUT... he also admits that the deposit was at no time paid into a TDS. As this claim is 100% about the non-compliance, so surely this shoulc be struck out to. What is the process for this. As it stands a Judge is reviewing the defence and will make a ruling in a week or so time. When can I ask for it to be struck out? And how do I do it? Thanks!
  16. The counter claim doesnt say anything about the inventory, just that there is disrepair to the property. I was hoping we could use the inventory as evidence that this was not the case. I do know that all the fixtures and fittings in this were passed off as fine. I have the initial inventory as hard evidence that it was taken at the beginning, and emails to confirm that it was taken at the end also. I'm just concerned that I have no idea what disrepair he is referring too and given that I dont have a copy of the final inventory there is room for him to change it after the fact. (He's that sort of guy). If he does provide this evidence before the court, will I have a chance to send counter-evidence also? Thanks
  17. Hi there, My LL is counter claiming damages against our tenancy deposit scheme non-compliance claim. He is saying that we damaged fixtures and fittings. Yet he wont give us a copy of the final inventory (which was 100% fine). Can he do this?
  18. I would complete the N208 form and photo copy it and send it to her with a letter stating that unless she returns the full deposit within 7 days, you will be submitting the attached form to the country court and will claim 3x the deposit (state the amount) as penalty for her non-compliance of her statutory requirments of Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004. State also that "Your only defence to this claim would be to prove you have complied with the TDS and this is something you will clearly be unable to do" And if she fails to do so, send it off.
  19. There is a good letter under the first sticky that will give you a good idea what to say....
  20. And yes... the 3x gets paid to the tenant... should you win...
  21. I'm not a lawyer, so really, my advice is worth what you paid for it, but from my standing it looks pretty good. I had in mine the following which I though hammered home the point that the LL really does not want to end up in court: "If the judge orders the return of the deposit, then he MUST also order the landlord to pay a penalty to the value of 3 times the deposit. The judge has no discretion of this. Your only defence to this would be to prove that you have indeed protected the deposit, and this is something you will clearly be unable to do." But I guess it depends how pushy you want to be..
  22. Thats fine, I realise. Its part of a larger TDS non-compliance suit and the fact we havent been able to dispute this amount... It shouldnt come into is as the claim is absolute, just want to have something in the back pocket in case the judge asks why we are disputing the amount. Thanks for your help Sali.
×
×
  • Create New...