Jump to content

UpOverTheEyeballs

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

6 Neutral
  1. Just found this, para 6 is interesting and I've pasted it in here (hopefully that's not wrong) http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/newsletter/february2012/page2.shtml When the new rules come into effect if you fail to protect the deposit/give the prescribed information within 30 days of receiving the deposit then the tenant (or a third party who pays towards the deposit) can claim a penalty. Former tenants are able to make a claim as well. There is a minimum penalty of once times the deposit with a maximum of three times the deposit. The Court is given a discretion and unlike under the old system where there was a mandatory three times the deposit penalty. The Court will take various factors into account such as why you failed to protect the deposit, how long it was before you protected it and so on. Orders for penalties can now be made independently of orders dealing with the deposit itself. >>> This sentence is relevant to our situation >>> If the tenancy is still continuing the Court must order the full deposit to be repaid to the tenant or paid over to the custodial scheme (DPS). Where the tenancy has ended an order to repay must be made and if the landlord (or agent) still holds the deposit an order to repay it can be made in favour of the applicant. Such an order, once the tenancy has ended, can be an order to repay the deposit in all or in part. This leaves it open for the landlord to make a claim on the deposit eg. to claim for rent arrears. And here's another post that scopes out from a 2011 view how the new law will go forwards as regards a tenant making a claim = = = By way of contrast, if the tenancy is continuing, the Court can order that the deposit be paid to the tenant or paid into a scheme within 14 days of making the order. http://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/blog/2012/09/the-tenancy-deposit-scheme-a-further-update/ = = = And another one here. This is the second time I have read that ongoing tenants could be entitled to obtain a refund of the deposit. The sentence below appears in the following link, however, there are no para numbers so I've included it here for clarity. http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/04/18/tenants-legal-making-tenancy-deposit-claim/ = = = A theme prevailing within the articles is that is is (clearly) more beneficial for a tenant to apply for the penalty but exclude the deposit, since an unreturned or unprotected deposit equals no S21 allowability. I quote from here http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2012/07/23/i-havent-protected-the-deposit-what-can-i-do/ "If a section 21 Notice cannot be served this would then mean that a landlord could not rely upon this mandatory no fault ground to bring possession proceedings. A tenant would then find themselves in the position of almost being akin to an assured tenant only able to be made the subject of a possession order if one of the grounds to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 had been made out. " So perhaps my earlier distaste with how the new rules appeared to work needs to be acknowledged as incorrect. = = = So now it appears I have to get my head round how I prepare the penalty claim, which I see is to be made under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules as before. The problem with this, however, is that it appears to be a much more costly route than before. Am I right on this, as some posts refer to costs around £1,500 rather than hundreds?
  2. Thanks for the heads up on this. I have been reading up on the Localism Bill and it would appear that as an existing tenant, whilst I commence an action to obtain return of the deposit, I can do so in respect of a penalty for breaching the timescales ( by over 3 years) and that would be for x1 up to x3 dependant upon what the court felt was correct. It also appears that if the claim is valid a x1 penalty, plus any costs would be the minimum. I'll continue to read up but if anyone else wants to jump in and pop a comment on here feel free. Thanks all UOTE
  3. So, as existing tenants, it appears that we are f@#*ed in that the landlord can keep the deposit in his pocket (as they always did in the past) and unless I want to pour money down the tubes as legal fees there's no financial penalty that the courts can or will apply. I appreciate the invalid S21 issue, however, that's not important, ATM at least. Nice one Mr Government, glad to see you're thinking about surfs not (land)lords for a change! (frustrated) UOTE!
  4. So that's why I was becoming confused when reading 08 and 11/12 posts. Seems like 'the system' is pushing back against tenants (again). Mindful that we are not tenants that have vacated the premises but ongoing tenants, that we cannot sue for the deposit to be returned, however we can commence an action for 1x - 3x that deposit as a penalty. Weird. Are there any links to any example wordings or posts that are specifically post 6 April to provide further guidance? Thanks in advance UOTE
  5. Hello all, I haven't been on CAG for a while (previously related to credit and debt issues), however, I now wish to clarify the situation regarding unprotected deposits. Briefly, we have an AST (commenced Apr '08) that is now continuing as a periodic and the deposit was never protected at it's commencement. We are still tenants, and will be continuing as such for the immediate future, however, we wish to submit a claim for return of the deposit and, if appropriate, for 3x deposit plus any allowable costs and interest charges as well. However, in reading up on here I am somewhat confused as the law which covers this issue appears to have been subject to various case law interpretations and revisions since it's origination. The sticky threads on here all appear to relate to 2008 but later posts seem to contradict some of those earlier comments. There also appears to be issues between submitting a N208 or an N1 claim since one appears to be for purely return of a deposit and the other for a wider claim. I've been reviewing various posts and it looks like whilst previously, being a continuing tenant did not preclude claiming for return of the deposit plus a penalty, now one can only claim for the penalty. For example the following thread provides useful information but it appears out of date when compared to other comments elsewhere. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?126261-TDS-Court-Claims-Wording If someone could perhaps point me in the direction of the relevant posts that can shed any light on this I would appreciate it. Many thanks UOTE
  6. Carl, thanks for the reply and I'm sorry to hear that it's based on what you should have done rather than did do. It's terrible that in 2012 a company can use laws designed to be used with Victorian ships in this way. I've downloaded a copy of the invoice; thanks for that. Rgds UOTE
  7. Not so much a bump, more of a prompt. There's been over 80 viewings of my post and I just wondered whether anybody would care to offer up any suggestions, even if they are of the 'there's nothing you can do to protect yourself' type. Just like to know I'm the only one on here, if you know what I mean. Thanks and regards UOTE
  8. Thank you Brigadier2cjs, it all rests upon the difference between SB, which is a legal issue, and default date, which is a CRA issue. So a late default can stretch the elapsed period quite a while I would guess. Rgds UOTE
  9. Brigadier2cjs you raise an interesting point: I understood the concept of statue-barring being linked to the 6 year date since last admittance of the debt. However, in your last post you intimate that SB could possibly occur prior to the 6 yr date. Is is possible to explain or state if or when this would occur? Many thanks UOTE.
  10. Yes Brigadier2cjs, they enclosed a wad of papers that purported to 'show' that the debt was valid and collectable. However, since they'd never pressed this point in a court in the last 6 years it was all very immaterial.
  11. I am looking to purchase a car in about a month's time which will be for well under £1,000. It will be cash, not financed. From what I've read on CAG and elsewhere there isn't really anything that a prospective buyer can do to guarantee that, if I purchase via from a private vendor, that the seller hasn't got an outstanding log book loan on the car they are selling to me. I've read on here about some of the steps to take, after the event, but I'm trying to build up a picture of the steps to take before the event. It seems that a combination of an HPI report, plus purchasing via a motor trader declaring themselves as such would be the best way to go, is that correct? If there are any links or tips on here that I've missed, can anyone point me in the correct direction. Or even if there's anyone out there that would be willing to volunteer any thoughts such as, " The next time I buy a car I'll do it THIS way ..." I would really appreciate it. Many tanks UOTE
  12. Thanks for the tips. In the end I went with the pdf route. A nice letter for a Saturday morning, don't you think? StatuteBarred.pdfattached
  13. Sit rep as follows. False entry to be removed. Result! Their letter was dated 2 days after my 14 day Letter Before Action was posted so it is clear they fully understood the position they were in. I will be sending a copy of their letter to the CRA in question and will ask them to confirm the entry is deleted, after all, it would be terrible if the DCA 'forgot' to do what they said they would do Amended copy of their letter is attached for ref. Thanks again guys; if I had gone with my first plan I would have written to the Information Commissioner and from what I have read that could have taken months or years, certainly not just TWO days. Thanks again
×
×
  • Create New...