Jump to content

Curtainsplitter

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Curtainsplitter

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. hi sorry brownguy is my brother, we use a shared computer. He's really upset today as he has had a CCJ put against him about rent arrears..and was on the forum earlier. I didn't realise he will still logged in and by accident posted on his username..apologies about that. Here is what I put: Hey so just an update..Halfords's solicitors suggested a mechanic who is £600 so it would be £300 each upfront paid..they sent me his expertise as such. And said they had had quotes of £2000-3000 so they felt this £600 quote they had' liased' to get was correct. I looked into the company and although there was no link of ties online to them and Halfords or any sub-contracts of which my main concern was... I just do not trust their solicitors as to the matter and perhaps I am wrong here in this?I did wonder as to how they had contacted this 'expert' first as to what had been said and if any incentive had been offered as they had spoken to them first and of course have their client-halfwords best interests at hand. Therefore Halfords asked me if I accepted their witness expert they produced. My understanding from speaking to them was they would produce a list of experts and or the court would appoint an expert that was independent, as the only reason the judge had not given me reason that my witness could not be used was that I had spoken with him before mentioning it to the court and therefore the court do not know what was said between me and him and if such if any incentive such as money was agreed. I therefore explained all of this to Halfords Solicitors and thus that I don't agree to their expert on the same grounds as I did not know what had been 'liaised' to get this price and also what had been said. Since then haven't heard anything from them. Don't know if i made the right move..but haven't heard from them since...what are the options for moving this forward..I have researched and seen some sites that offer car mechanics who do court approved and trading standards approve mechanic inspection and reports for £200 with the same qualifications as Halford's witness?
  2. To update you all directions came to place..had mediation on Monday put my points across about them not finding a replacement, lack of advertising and also the case law you guys mentioned about frustration of contract..the landlord came back and said he didn't reply to the cpr 18 because he didn't know how to and basically he'll offer £2500 on monthly installments as a option. I also mentioned that when i rang the dps about my £300 deposit they said the estate agent used it towards rent arrears and held it and the landlord says he never got any of that money so as far as he's concerned he hasn't included it. Surely if the landlord used it towards 'rent arrears' some should have been given back to the landlord? My mum reckons telling the DPS is the best route but am unsure..any advice? Am thinking to just accept the offer of £2500 but am unhappy about my £300 disappearing into the estate agents pocket..and doing it on monthly payments..as a judge is only going to tell me that i signed a contract am liable..and the estate agent/landlord have no duty to find a replacement as a matter of importance aren't the. Do you know if you can still accept a mediation offer at a later time? Any help appreciated
  3. Hi thanks for the advice. I haven't chased her regarding the CPR but thought to note the act she has ignored it, but I wanted to know if i asked for evidence rather than information will the judge use this against me, or will he be open to the fact I am new to the law and a litigant in person? Directions forms have come now, but I had a question regarding the witnesses part of the form..if my witnesses give a statement in writing but are ill or sick what would happen? would i not be able to use their statements...or?
  4. well the woman asking for £4000+ and 2 years of court interest from me for this tenancy. Its a lot of money and if she can't provide even anymore info then i'd be questioning if she's inflated some of her costs and to be honest I have only just finished university so I do not have that money to repay her unless it was monthly i.e. £10 a month until paid off. How would i go about asking the court for a application?
  5. Hey guys just to update you..so I sent my defence off..and also adjusted the CPR request so it was just for information. I received no response to the CPR or my defence and just a letter saying 'the claimant wishes to proceed'. Can anything be done about the fact the claimant has not responded to the CPR with info?
  6. nope i think the op put that they have just put exactly what i said they're going to call upon a technical expert of vehicle maintence..im told by the OP aa and rac won't get involved in these things..so dot know who they'll use..OP can you eleborate? Either way I'm surprised Halfords won't go into settlement after they see the disclosure of your evidence..
  7. Any help appreciated, especially from the wise members on here. I've thought about it and if i can get a settlement for £500 i'll probably just settle..Thanks
  8. This is the CPR i want to post today..any opinions appreciated..aso do i need to post a copy to the court? Correspondance Address: x Claim Number: x Date: 17TH June 2015 (within court request date) Between: x (Claimant) and x(Defendant) Legal Notice CPR REGULATION PART 18 - REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To: x Please answer the following questions: 1. Has the property been used by the Landlord or let to anyone else during the tenancy in question? Please provide evidence. 3: Please provide copies of the 2 tenancy documents and 2 guarantor forms alongside deposit protection scheme proof that you are stating you hold. 4 Please provide evidence of all advertising attempts, newspaper adverts and methods made to re-fill the property for period of tenancy made by Landlord. 5. Please provide evidence of all postage attempts made to the defendant during 2012-2014. 6. Please provide evidence of all property bills for September 2012- 2013 (during tenancy duration.) 7. Please provide evidence of all telephone calls made to the defendant during 2012-2015. 8. Please provide evidence of all your (the claimant’s) agents advertising attempts, advertising adverts and costs made to re-fill the property between 2012-2014. 9. Please provide evidence that you have not received a refund of the DPS deposit (£300.00) 10.Please provide evidence of the attempts made to ensure the address in question was the correct address for the defendant for the last 3 years, including contact requests. 11. Please provide evidence as to why the property could not be leased out a short-term basis. 12. Please provide a breakdown, with proof, you have made the financial loss you stated in your Claim Form for the tenancy duration by providing evidence of mortgage debt or any other for September 2012 to June 2013. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE.
  9. Statement of Defence 1. Firstly, it is admitted that the defendant signed a tenancy agreement in relation to the property at Flat 13 South Mews, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6GE, United Kingdom in approximately December 2012 as a student with his friend (co-tenant) for a tenancy to start in September 2013. The defendant is happy to respond to this address. The sole purpose of the tenancy agreement was to enable the defendant to attend the University of Derby’s sub campus in Buxton to study a BA Honours and the property in question was advertised as a student property. The estate agent representing the claimant specialises in student properties for university students in this location. 2. The defendant paid a deposit of £300.00 directly to the claimant’s agent (Frank Marshall’s Estate Agent’s Buxton), which was later, registered with the DPS tenancy scheme. The Deposit was never returned to the defendant and the claimant and her agent has never provided evidence of how this has been used. Strict question therefore will be bought to the claimant on the usage of these funds. 3. The defendant, denies the allegations by the claimant as he did not receive the correct tenancy agreement in December 2012 as the Claimant’s agent stated that there had been a filing ‘error’’ by one of their staff. Further it was the defendant who noticed the error not the claimant’s agent. This resulted in a second tenancy and guarantor form being issued. This was a unilateral mistake of the claimant’s agent. 4. The defendant notes that this was no fault of his own but the claimant’s agent’s fault and legal liability falls to the claimant’s estate agent for this error and not the defendant under ‘unilateral mistake’ law. When the correct tenancy was sent out to the defendant it was signed by the defendant and returned, but no guarantor form was signed and returned by anyone in relation to the new tenancy agreement. Therefore the claimant will be put to strict proof that the guarantor form in question relates to the corrected tenancy agreement and is legally applicable when prior the claimant’s agents had stated the incorrect tenancy and guarantor form were legally void due to their reference to the incorrect rental type and billing specifications/items. This is as per the fundamental legal principles set out in unilateral mistake law, such as Webster V Cecil. 5. The Defendant refers the claimant to the ‘Frustration of Contract’ law in which similar cases have occurred. Due to circumstances outside the control of the defendant, the relevant course of study for the defendant was unexpectedly cancelled. The impact on the defendant was he was forced to withdraw from his university to transfer to another university who did the same course so he could complete his final year. The defendant provided the agent of the claimant evidence of this matter and further that it was no fault of his own, which was accepted by the claimant’s agent in June 2013 prior to the tenancy start. 6. Thus the fundamental purpose of the contract was legally ‘frustrated’ (as per frustration of contract law and paragraph 5) and the defendant at his immediate awareness notified the claimant and their agent of the frustration of contract so is not negligent. Furthermore the contract agreement was for a ‘student’ to fulfil a property for ‘students’ in a shared student property thus the specification of contract could not be kept by the defendant due to factors out of his control. Reference is made to the case of Nicholl and Knight V Ashton, Eldridge & Co to back this. Furthermore the defendant would have had to act illegally and pretend to be a student receiving a student loan at the local university, if he was forced by claimant & agent to continue the tenancy and thus he would have had to act in an illegal manner. Reference is made again to case law relating to the breach of a tenancy agreement in similar case - Fibrosa Spolka V Fairborn, where ‘frustrating a contract, made the contract void’. 7. Moreover, ‘Frustration of Contract’ as identified by the defendant relates to the principles set out in Krell v Henry, where the defendant was released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy in similar situation and in this case the defendant would also believe he should have been released out of the tenancy and this will be argued to the strictest of element. 8. It is strictly denied that the claimant's letting agents were not informed until a ‘few’ weeks before the tenancy was due to start. In fact, the letting agents were informed of the frustration of contract on 28th June 2013 by telephone and, on 1st July in personal visit to the claimant’s agent/s office where he discussed the matter and delivered by hand a letter of notification. This was a good 2-months prior to the tenancy start date and during the peak period when students are seeking accommodation. 9. Subsequent emails were sent to the relevant claimant’s agent, which the defendant has evidence of and the defendant has witnesses to this who are willing to testify in court against the claimant, one witness of which is the co-tenant – Mr XXXX (As per paragraph 1 outlining the tenancy was with a co-tenant/friend). 10. The defendant is not liable for the claimant’s agents negligent in their duty of care if they only responded in mid-August 2013. The defendant notified the claimant’s agent at the earliest opportunity by verbal notification on the 28th June so they could re-let the room and the claimant’s agent received written notification also. This will be argued to the strictest of proof. 11. Upon the claimant's letting agents receiving the written notice on July 1st 2013, the claimant and the claimant’s agent was under an obligation to find another tenant by re-advertising the property in order to let it to another tenant. The defendant has evidence that the claimant’s agent stated they would advertise the property to other student/s. this will be argued to the strictest of proof upon what attempts had been made and proof will be requested from the claimant as per set out court regulations. 12. The claimant is put to the strictest of proof and evidence as to what steps were taken to mitigate her loss. 13. The claimant is put to the strictest of proof as to what evidence of advertising the property’s vacancy by herself and her agents was done and the methods used in numerous ways to attract tenants between July 2013 and the end of the tenancy on June 2014. 14. The claimant is put to the strictest of proof as to why they could not have leased the property out even on a shorter-term basis (for 1-3 months) and why they have failed to do this and mitigate their loss. 15. The claimant also states that she made ‘numerous’ attempts to contact the defendant, but the claimant and her agent were aware that the defendant was moving property from June (as per prior paragraphs) and transferring university and therefore strict question is bought to when the claimant ensured the address in question was the most relevant and that the tracking numbers for the proof of postage of prior showed correspondence was received by the defendant. Furthermore strict proof is put to as to when the claimant made any attempt to ensure or ask for the correct address from the claimant in the last three years. The defendant also re-iterates this point in that the address the claim has been issued to is that of ’XXX, United Kingdom’ is not his address but that of his mother’s. 16. If the claimant cannot provide evidence which can be verified and checked of the points raised above, as per the principles set out in Krell v Henry, the defendant believes further he should be released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy and the amount alleged to be owed. 17. The strictest of question will also be put to the claimant and her agents as to why they rented the property out to the co-tenant (Mr Valentine Kagundire) when they were aware a frustration of contract had occurred months before the tenancy start date. The claimant was aware from the notification point that a loss would be made and her agents also were aware, at any point as stated that they would make a loss when the contract was a ‘2 tenant- tenancy’ for a ‘2 bedroom tenancy property’ on a ‘shared tenancy’ basis and why they did not terminate the contract with both parties is a mystery to the defendant. 18. The defendant will also provide evidence that properties of these type and similar location/size/vacancies are rented out at a rapid speed on a regular basis by experienced and correctly trained estate agents and thus if the property was advertised correctly it would have been easily re-rentable and no loss would have been made and if the claimant had advertised the property in numerous ways or hired experienced and motivated agents, this situation would not have happened. 19. Further to point 17, the fault is of the claimant and the claimant’s agents and not the defendant for any losses incurred. The defendant is not liable for poor agent management. 20. The claimant seeks ‘full rent’ as payment of the monies owed, however the tenancy agreement included bills capped to £100 a month per tenant, as there was a co-tenant who did keep to the tenancy in question (xxxxx), these bills would have been paid by Mr Valentine and therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of evidence that the bills were over £100 on every tenancy month in question and that these bills were not paid by the co-tenant. putting the claimant to the strictest of question on the ‘consequential’ losses she claims to have ‘incurred’. 21. On speaking to the DPS in a recorded audio phone call on 01/06/15, the DPS confirm that the claimant’s agent have already made a claim for the deposit money due to ‘rent arrears’ in 2013, therefore the claimant’s claim amount should include a £300 deduction which it does not, therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of proof that they have not received any deposit funds back and why they are not including this. 22. As this deposit was not returned, strict question will be bought to the claimant as to why they did not ensure their agents were following the correct DPS deposit protection scheme regulation rules and also to the claimant as a ‘landlord’ as to why both parties did not follow the government deposit scheme procedure in notifying the defendant of a dispute of the deposit funds within ten days. 23. It is noted that the claimant is asking for 2 years of interest plus court interest. The strictest of question and proof will be bought to the claimant, as to when the tenancy in question was a 6 month tenancy which ended in early 2014 as to why the claimant has waited numerous years to file a claim and it is further noted that 2014 and 2015 have no mentions of correspondence and therefore why the claimant has not filed a claim earlier or contacted the defendant and how the claimant can provide strict evidence that this is a ‘mitigated loss’. 24. In respect to the above points, the defendant concludes that all costs incurred by the claimant and her agents have been already paid out via the DPS scheme and the defendant does not owe any of the monies asked by the claimant due to the facts provided. I hereby confirm that the facts and statement given was true to the best of my knowledge. Signed: Dated:
  10. Hi guys in the end..I rang MCOL yesterday and now were given contradicting final date..22nd..so I have posted my defence yesterday 1st class recorded to the courts..and the defendant. I believe this is the right practice? This is the final defence I sent..any opinions appreciated. I wanted to ask..the CPR18 that you gave steam, can the claimant refuse to answer my questions on it?
  11. Thanks Steam, well I tried to take out how much I could but I feel some points I need to say really. I appreciate your feedback as per point 7 so I may take that out. I'm going to post it on 17th so that i've done it pretty last minute
  12. Hi thanks CitizenB for confirming that. Well I have an audio recording of the phone call to MCOL if they try and give me the wrong date. I've started reading the CAG resources and it's some really useful stuff! Especially call recording. I'll have to start being more abrupt and recording people. I've tried to make the defence less thick and more to the point. Let me know what you think of this please guys and girls: . Statement of Defence Firstly it is admitted that the defendant signed a tenancy agreement in relation to the property at Flat 13 South Mews, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6GE in approximately December 2012 as outlined by the claimant.
The sole purpose of the tenancy agreement was to enable the Defendant to attend the University of Derby’s sub campus in Buxton to study a BA Honours in Travel and Tourism Management, which was known to both parties before signing the contract, as this was a student property and the estate agent representing the claimant specializes in student properties for university students in this area. The defendant paid a deposit of £300.00 through the DPS Scheme and was informed on paying the deposit that this would ‘secure’ his student property with a friend- xxxxx- the co-tenant and the relevant tenancy/guarantor form would be posted to the defendant. After the defendant had paid the above deposit as per point 2, the defendant received the tenancy in the post from the claimant’s agents it was the incorrect tenancy as it was for ‘residential short term’ properties and not the agreed ‘student’ property by the claimant’s agent and thus contained discrepancies within the contract because of this. The defendant therefore contacted the agent of the claimant at the earliest date possible and informed them of this. The agent of the claimant stated that there had been a filing ‘error’ by a staff member called ‘Abby’ and a new tenancy and guarantor form would be issued as the prior tenancy agreement would be void due to them referring to the incorrect format of property rental type and incorrect billing types within the incorrect tenancy agreement. The defendant notes that this was no fault of his own but the claimant’s agent’s fault. When the correct tenancy was sent out to the defendant it was signed by the defendant and returned, but no guarantor form was signed and returned. Therefore the claimant will be put to strict proof that the guarantor form in question relates to the correct tenancy agreement and is applicable when prior the claimant’s agents had stated the incorrect tenancy and guarantor form were legally void. Due to circumstances outside the control of the defendant, the relevant course of study for the defendant was unexpectedly cancelled. Thus the defendant was forced to transfer to another University who did the same course, the nearest being in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. The defendant provided the agent of the claimant evidence of this matter and that it was no fault of his own, which was accepted by the claimant’s agent at the time. The fundamental purpose of the contract was legally frustrated and the defendant at his immediate awareness notified the agents of the claimant in the frustration of contract and should not be held liable as he could not do anymore in the matter. In line with the principles set out in Krell v Henry, the Defendant was released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy and in this case the defendant would also believe he should have been released out of the tenancy and this will be argued. It is strictly denied that the Claimant's letting agents were not informed until a ‘few’ weeks before the tenancy was due to start. In fact, the letting agents were informed of the frustration of contract on July 1st 2013 (12 weeks before the move in date and official contract start date) by letter delivered by hand and subsequent emails sent to the relevant claimants agent, the defendant has witnesses to this who are willing to testify in court against the claimant, one witness of which is the co-tenant – . Further to this the defendant made numerous attempts to contact the claimant’s agent to try and get acknowledgement of the situation and it was the claimant’s agents negligent in their duty by only responding in mid-August 2013 due to there ‘leave’ and ‘schedule’. The defendant was told on numerous occasions on prior attempts to contact the claimant’s agent/s that only this ‘property’s listed agent’ could deal with any enquiries regarding the property which delayed the matter and this meant the defendant notified the claimant and their agent as soon as possible and it can only be noted that the claimant’s agent notified the claimant at a later date then the original notice issued by the defendant and the defendant relays this is no fault of his own and is the fault of the claimants agent. This left the Claimant's letting agents and the claimant with more than enough time to re-let the property and this will be argued to the strictest of proof using evidence provided by the defendant. 6. Upon the Claimant's letting agents receiving the notice on July 1st 2013, the claimant and the claimant’s agent was under an obligation to mitigate her loss by re-finding another tenant by re-advertising the property in order to let it to another tenant. The Claimant is put to the strictest of proof and evidence as to what steps were taken to mitigate her loss by herself and to re-advertise the property’s vacancy by herself and her agents between July 2013 and the end of the tenancy on June 2014 in the 12 weeks provided and even after this period (the longer period of time). The claimant could have leased the property out even on a shorter-term basis and failed to do this. The claimant also states that she made numerous attempts to contact the defendant, but the claimant and her agent were aware that the defendant was moving property and therefore they would not have the correct address on file, therefore strict question is bought to when the claimant ensured the address in question was the most relevant and that the tracking numbers for the proof of postage that prior correspondence was made from were received by the defendant. if the claimant cannot provide evidence of this, as per the principles set out in Krell v Henry, the Defendant believes he should be released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy. 7.The strictest of question will be put to the claimant and her agents as to why they rented the property out to the co-tenant when they were aware a frustration of contract had occurred 2 months before the tenancy start date and they would make a loss when the contract was a ‘2 tenant- tenancy’ for a ‘2 bedroom tenancy property’ and why they did not terminate the contract to both tenants, which would have been the logical thing to do in order to rent out the property to other students and keep 100% profit. 8.The defendant will also provide evidence that properties of these type and similar location/size/vacancies are rented out at a rapid speed on a regular basis by experienced and correctly trained estate agents and thus if the property was advertised correctly it would have been easily re-rentable and no loss would have been made which is fault of the claimant and the claimant’s agents and not the defendant, who authorized the agent to re-advertise the vacancy. The claimant seeks ‘full rent’ as payment of the monies owed, however the tenancy agreement included bills capped to £100 a month per tenant, as there was a co-tenant who did keep to the tenancy in question (Mr Valentine Kagundire), these bills would have been paid by the last tenant and therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of evidence that the bills were over £100 on every tenancy month in question and that the claimant is not trying to overzealously inflate costs and thus the defendant will again question the claimant to the strictest of proof that she has mitigated her losses as per CPR court guidelines. 9. The DPS Deposit which was paid to Frank Marshalls (the agent of the claimant) and was never returned to the defendant at any point neither was any notice that it would be held and this will be put to strict question against the claimant to the strict point that deposit protection laws were broken and why the claimant has not deducted these costs from her claim total. The defendant gave Frank Marshall authorization to keep this deposit cover any costs relating to advertising the property and the defendant’s frustration of contract. The claimant has not listed anywhere in her claim any mention that the deposit of £300.00 was held by herself the claimant and her agents. On speaking to the DPS in a recorded audio phone call on 01/06/15, the DPS confirm that the claimant’s agent have already made a claim for this deposit money due to ‘rent arrears’ on 2013, therefore her claim amount should include a £300 deduction which it does not, therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of proof that they have not received any deposit funds back and why they are not including this. As this deposit was not returned, the strict question will be bought to the claimant as to why they did not ensure their agents were following the correct DPS deposit protection schemes and the claimant as a ‘landlord’ was not also following the government deposit law and also why the defendant has not deducted this fee from her total claim costs. All costs incurred by the claimant or the ‘landlord’ have been already paid out via the DPS scheme and the defendant does not owe any of the monies asked by the claimant due to the facts provided. I hereby confirm that the facts and statement given was true to the best of my knowledge. Signed: Dated:
  13. This is the defence i have written..i took what you said steam on board but added my own views..perhaps am wrong and you seem more experienced on here so i'd value your opinions..My mum said I may have been a bit verbose so any help would be appreciated. Statement of Defence 1. Firstly it is admitted that the defendant signed a tenancy agreement in relation to the property at Flat 13 South Mews, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6GE in approximately December 2012 as outlined by the claimant. The sole purpose of the tenancy agreement was to enable the Defendant to attend the University of Derby’s sub campus in Buxton to study a BA Honours in Travel and Tourism Management, which was known to both parties before signing the contract, as this was a student property and the estate agent representing the claimant specializes in student properties for university students in this area. 2. The defendant paid a deposit of £300.00 through the DPS Scheme and was informed on paying the deposit that this would ‘secure’ his student property with a friend- XXXX- the co-tenant and the relevant tenancy/guarantor form would be posted to the defendant. 3. After the defendant had paid the above deposit he received no tenancy agreement for a month and had to chase the claimant’s agent up for the tenancy agreement. The defendant will provide evidence of this in court. When the defendant received the tenancy in the post from the claimant’s agents it was the incorrect tenancy as it was for ‘residential short term’ properties and not the stated/agreed ‘student’ property with student tenancy properties advertised originally by the claimants agent and thus contained discrepancies within the contract because of this. The defendant therefore contacted the agent of the claimant at the earliest date possible and informed them of this. The agent of the claimant stated that there had been a filing ‘error’ and a new tenancy and guarantor form would be issued as the prior tenancies would be void due to them referring to the incorrect format of property type and bills/pricing. The defendant notes that this was no fault of his own but the claimant’s agent’s fault and will provide evidence of this to the strictest of element. When the correct tenancy was sent out to the defendant by the claimant’s agent after notification by the defendant it was signed by the defendant and returned, but no guarantor form was signed for the student property contract was signed and returned. This makes any prior tenancy agreement for a ‘residential’ property legally void as the property is not and was not a residential rental and was not in the tenancy in question, the property is a student property and any prior guarantor forms correlating to this are thus void as agreed by the claimants agents in prior discussion. The defendant can provide strict evidence of this matter and the claimant will be put to strict proof that the guarantor form in question relates to the correct tenancy agreement. 4. Due to circumstances outside the control of the defendant, the relevant course of study for the defendant, was unexpectedly cancelled by the relevant university due to a lack of sign up and lack of accommodation at the university being available and the defendant was forced to transfer to another University who did the same course, the nearest being in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. The defendant provided the agent of the claimant evidence of this matter and that it was no fault of his own and the fundamental purpose of the contract was legally frustrated because of this. The defendant at his immediate awareness notified the agents of the claimant in the frustration of contract and should not be held liable. In line with the principles set out in Krell v Henry, the Defendant was released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy and in this case the defendant should also have been released out of the tenancy and this will be argued to the strictest of statue. 5. It is strictly denied that the Claimant's letting agents were not informed until a ‘few’ weeks before the tenancy was due to start. In fact, the letting agents were informed of the frustration of contract on July 1st 2013 (2 months before the move in date and official contract start date) by letter delivered by hand and the defendant has witnesses to this who are willing to testify in court against the claimant, including the co-tenant – XXX. Further to this the defendant made numerous phone calls to the claimant’s agent to chase the matter up which the defendant has evidence of in July 2013 to the agent of the claimant. The agent of the claimant was negligent in their duty and only responded in August 2013 due to there ‘leave’ and ‘schedule’ and the defendant was told on numerous occasions that only this ‘property’s listed agent’ could deal with any enquiries regarding the property meant the defendant notified the claimant and their agent as soon as possible and it can only be stated that the claimant’s agent notified the claimant at a later date then the original notice issued by the defendant and the defendant relays this is no fault of his own and is the fault of the claimants agent. Copies of the frustration of contract to notify the claimant’s agents will be provided and written correspondence from the claimant’s agent. This left the Claimant's letting agents and the claimant with more than enough time to re-let the property and this will be argued to the strictest of proof using evidence provided by the defendant. 6. Upon the Claimant's letting agents receiving the notice on July 1st 2013, the claimant was under an obligation to mitigate her loss by re-advertising the property in order to let it to another tenant. The Claimant is put to the strictest of proof and evidence as to what steps were taken to mitigate her loss by herself and to re-advertise the property’s vacancy by herself and her agents between July 2013 and the end of the tenancy on June 2014, if the claimant cannot provide evidence of this, as per the principles set out in Krell v Henry, the Defendant was released from any further obligation in respect of the tenancy and in other principles tenants only pay the relevant advertising costs necessary/that were paid to re-advertise the vacancy of property. 7.The strictest of question will be put to the claimant and her agents as to why they rented the property out to the co-tenant (Mr Valentine Kagundire) when they were aware a frustration of contract had occurred 2 months before the tenancy start date and they would make a loss when the contract was a ‘2 tenant- tenancy’ for a ‘2 bedroom tenancy property’ and why they did not terminate the contract to both tenants, which would have been the logical thing to do in order to rent out the property to other students and keep 100% profit. The defendant will provide evidence that properties of these type and similar location/size/vacancies are rented out at a rapid speed on a regular basis by experienced and correctly trained estate agents and thus if the property was advertised correctly it would have been easily re-rentable and no loss would have been made which is fault of the claimant and the claimant’s agents and not the defendant, who authorized the agent to re-advertise the vacancy. The claimant seeks ‘full rent’ as payment of the monies owed, however the tenancy agreement included bills capped to £100 a month per tenant, as there was a co-tenant who did keep to the tenancy in question (xxxx), these bills would have been paid by the last tenant and therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of evidence that the bills were over £100 on every tenancy month in question and that the claimant is not trying to overzealously inflate costs and thus the defendant will again question the claimant to the strictest of proof that she has mitigated her losses as per CPR court guidelines. 8. The DPS Deposit which was paid to Frank Marshalls (the agent of the claimant) and was never returned to the defendant at any point neither was any notice that it would be held and this will be put to strict question against the claimant that deposit protection laws were not broken. The defendant gave Frank Marshall authorization to keep this deposit to re-advertise the property and cover any costs involved with doing so which means the defendant has already covered the advertising costs and storage costs which the defendant used/the frustration of contract caused to the claimant and her agents. The claimant has not listed anywhere in her claim any mention that the deposit of £300.00 was held by herself the claimant and her agents. On speaking to the DPS in a recorded audio phone call on 01/06/15, the DPS confirm that the claimant’s agent have already made a claim for this deposit money due to ‘rent arrears’ and thus the claimant has not made any mention of this, therefore her claim amount should include a £300 deduction of the rent/total which it does not, therefore the claimant will be put to the strictest of proof that they have not received any deposit funds back and why they are not including this. As this deposit was not returned to the strict question will be bought to the claimant as to why they did not ensure their agents were following the correct DPS deposit protection schemes and the claimant as a ‘landlord’ was not also following the government deposit law and also why the defendant has not deducted this fee from her total claim costs. Furthermore it is outlined by the courts under legislation that if you rent your home on an assured shorthold tenancy that started after 6 April 2007. In England and Wales must be registered with a deposit scheme. The TDP/DPS also state that ‘once your landlord has received your deposit’, they have 30 days to tell you: the address of the rented property how much deposit you’ve paid how the deposit is protected the name and contact details of the tenancy deposit protection (TDP) scheme and its dispute resolution service their (or the letting agency’s) name and contact details the name and contact details of any third party that’s paid the deposit why they would keep some or all of the deposit how to apply to get the deposit back what to do if you can’t get hold of the landlord at the end of the tenancy what to do if there’s a dispute over the deposit From the above the defendant will bring strict question as to when the claimant provided evidence of it’s dispute resolution service, the name and contact details of ‘any third party’ that paid the deposit (the estate agent of the claimant’s specific staff name or contact details.) and what to do if the landlord is not contactable or if there is a dispute over the deposit (in all paperwork there was never any contact details for the claimant). The defendant will bring evidence that this information was not provided in the tenancy and at any point by the claimant or the claimant’s agents. Furthermore the TDP deposit laws state ‘Your landlord must return your deposit within 10 days of you both agreeing how much you’ll get back.’ Strict question will be bought to the claimant on when they informed the defendant of this and followed TDP statutory law. In this element strict argument will be bought that the landlord did not follow this protocol and deposit laws. All costs incurred by the claimant or the ‘landlord’ have been already paid out via the DPS scheme and the defendant does not owe any of the monies asked by the claimant due to the facts provided. I hereby confirm that the facts and statement given was true to the best of my knowledge. Signed: Dated:
×
×
  • Create New...