Tenancy deposit - failed in court

[vidavooz]

Hi - my landlord did not protect my deposit, I kept asking him where protected and after 3 months still no response so I issued court papers. He then protected it. Finally got to court and judge said as he had protected it after court papers issued cannot give penalty. So this rogue landlord has a licence to flout the law - he will never protect a deposit now unless court papers are served on him as he has found he can get away it.

 

Going to appeal but whats the point??

 

Anyone else appealed?

[WelshMam2009]

That's disgusting and I'm sure not what the law was designed for.

 

Did you get any costs or was this small claims??

[vidavooz]

It was small claims, no nothing at all. Just told my claim could not succeed as he had since protected deposit. I know other Judges have ruled that if landlord only protected once court papers served then they HAVE given penalty... goodness knows why this didn't - he was such a pompous ass too - no need for it!

[JimmySpangle]

If other judges have ruled as you say then there is in law what is call precident. That makes a reference to which future judges will be bound. Appeal and quote one of the cases that you know of where the judge has awarded in similar circumstances. ie, smith vs Jones or whatever the names are. Be armed with court name and date of such case as appeal judge will want to clarify.

[bedlington83]

That's not right Jimmy. Precedent can only be set by the appeal court or higher

[lastattemptbutone]

Hey

Your experience sounds strangely familiar. My friend had a similar experience in small claims with a judge flouting really standard conventions (e.g. that landlady must provide evidence of damages, apportion costs etc). Everyone we consulted afterwards agreed that it was very unusual behaviour. Don't suppose you remember judge's name? Initials? Just curious!

[Steve__M]

As in this case the landlord never claimed the deposit was protected, the judge has to be satisfied that the "initial requirements" of the scheme were not met.

 

See Section 214:

 

Housing Act 2004 (c. 34)

 

So if the landlord protected the deposit late, you might have been able to show that the "initial requirements" of the scheme he used had not been met. This depends on the scheme, and when I last looked (quite a while ago) some schemes didn't state clearly any "initial requirements".

 

If you did not show evidence that the "initial requirements" had not been met, then the judge would have to assume that they *had* been met. Therefore you may not win on appeal. I believe that to win on appeal you have to show that the judge was wrong in law *based on the evidence given*.

 

Some time ago, one tenant reported here that his landlord protected the deposit, but because his landlord had not properly fulfilled the initial requirements of that scheme (I think it was TDS) they would not get involved at the end of the tenancy. This enabled the tenant to sue successfully for the 3x deposit.