Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Worried Landlord - Tenants not paying rent and claiming x3 deposit


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5208 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I rent a Bungalow to Lithuanian Family in Southampton. They have rented since June 2009, paying on time with the last rent of £850 received in December 2009. AST until June 2010.

 

I was informed Police had placed the Wife and 2 children placed in sheltered housing for their protection in January 2010. Shocked at this I met the Husband, who was threatening towards me and demanded I return the deposit of £850, which I explained was protected and I would place the AST now with Property letting agents.

 

Agent visited the property and informed me the Wife and children have returned. Now tenants not paying rent and tried refuse to deal with agent. Tenant paid £20 into my bank account, I returned saying this was wrong, rent must be paid to Agents and is £850. 2 months in arrears, so Agent issued s.21 and s.8, charging me £100 as no 10% from rent as rent not paid.

 

Tenant said, guttering need cleaned, wanted copy buildings insurance, copy electrical certificate and basically trying to raise complaints on the property. But I have give all certificates again and the property is in good order. The tenant is just trying it on.

 

Now the tenants have sent me Southampton County Court claim CPR 8 to claim x 3 deposit and deposit being £3,400 and court cost is paid to him under s214.

 

I am shocked at this. I gave a stand alone tenancy deposit document issuing details of my deposits.co.uk scheme that I was using was using to protect the deposit of £850 on 12/05/09 and AST signed and provided. I then fell ill and it took a few weeks for me to feel better and immediately I was better I transferred the money from the bank to my deposits.co.uk, recording on 17 July 2009. Tenancy started 15 June 2009. I subsequently informed my deposits and paid another fee to get the form to show the correct date of receipt being 12 May as per signed paper tenancy deposit paperwork as I used a Law Pack tenancy deposit paperwork and AST.

 

My understanding is since the Draycott v Hannells lettings Ltd case because I gave paperwork and a letter dated 12 May 2009 the day I received the deposit then subsequently felt fit enough to place with my deposits. Co.uk I have met the rules of s214(3) being the deposit is protected, so how can a judgement be made to protect the deposit when it already is protected, thus s214(4) request for x 3 payment of rent as a penalty to the landlord is not applicable.

 

I hope this is the case as the tenants are coursing me severe stress and I am paying a £900 mortgage for them to live rent free, which is stealing then if they claimed £3,400 being x 3 deposit, plus costs, how can that be fair?

 

Could any legal adviser give their input on this please ASAP as I have to reply within 14 days of 19/02/10. Thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see everything you have assumed is correct, you should use Draycott v Hannells Lettings Ltd 2010 as a defence should it proceed to court. I would also continue on with the S.21 and S.8 for rent arrears.

 

It might be worth an out of court letter explaining the Draycott v Hannells defence and any claim will be vigorously defended in court

 

The fine is applicable if the initial conditions of the scheme are not met, I believe the appeal established that the time period was not listed as an initial condition, and the scheme has accepted the deposit on a later basis.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fine is applicable if the initial conditions of the scheme are not met, I believe the appeal established that the time period was not listed as an initial condition, and the scheme has accepted the deposit on a later basis.

 

 

In that specific case only.

 

What tenancy deposit scheme is the deposit protected under?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

mydeposits

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Draycott defence, it was specifically noted that the term within the housing act referring to the initial conditions not being met was NOT breached, as the DPS (the TDS used in that case) did not explicitly outline that protecting the deposit within 14 days is an initial condition.

 

MyDeposits do specify this within their conditions.

 

As such, the Draycott defence does not apply here.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that under the Housing Act 2004 s213(3) and s213(6) if the tenant takes action s214(3) comes into play and the County Court as thinks fit will either -

 

1. Order the person who appears to the Court to be holding the deposit to repay to applicant. (This being wrong as the AST is still in force and if damage to property, then no deposit to use to cover this)

 

2. Order the person who appears to the Court to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme.

 

Now if the deposit is protected, which ut is, then the Court can not order what is already been done, and then no order can be made under s214(3) to s214(4) does not apply, so no x 3 penalty.

 

Plus, because one Deposit Protection scheme allowed this under Draycott v Hannells Ltd - 2010 then this would indicate that an inforce protected deposit meets the primary objective and all deposits protected in a similar way are legal. Thus anyone Landlord that was fined / penalty x3 deposit having protected a deposit in a similar way would not be fair.

 

Could any legal adviser please give their input on this. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair is not legal - they are two different things.

 

Under the HA 2004 act, if the court establishes that either:

 

- the deposit is not protected; or

- the initial requirements of the deposit scheme were not met

 

Then the deposit will be forced to repay AND 3 x deposit penalty must be enforced.

 

I dont see any ambiguity I'm afraid. The initial terms were not met, and as such the deposit and penalty must be paid.

 

I repeat - Draycott was based upon a deposit held in the DPS, which did not have the 14 day timescale stipulated as an initial requirement. MyDeposits DO.

 

I believe that the judges in the Draycott case explicitly referred to the fact that no such initial requirement was set, and that they said that if the initial requirement was in fact set, then the judgement would have been different.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that s213 requires (A) the deposit is protected and (B) it is protected within 14 days. However, the penalty provisions ONLY apply to (A) and NOT (B). Therefore as long as the deposit is protected (prior to proceedings) the x 3 penalty (fine) DOES NOT apply.

 

Could anyone legally qualified give their input on this.

 

Mr. Shed I appreciate your comments, but I don’t need anymore input from you. :confused:

 

Thank you. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Britannia - I find your comment rather insulting.

 

Is this another case of "anyone is welcome to assist, as long as you agree with me?"

 

Dont go into this blind. The Housing Act is pretty unequivocal, as is the precedent case you refer to (which you conveniently leave out the areas concering initial requirements).

 

If you dont believe me, simply read the Housing Act (I have taken the liberty of bolding the area in question).

 

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits

(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—

(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or

(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—

(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or

(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,

as the case may be.

(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—

(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,

within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(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.

 

Your response begs the question - if you feel you know the answer, why on earth are you posting on a forum if you do not like the contrary answers received?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Shed , thanks again. :)

 

It all boils down to the fact I have tenants not paying rent and there are examples where Landlords like me in good faith protect the deposit and then the tenants think 'Charity time' lets rip of the Landlord.

 

I would be interested to hear from any other Landlords that have hit a bad experiance like I am suffering at the moment.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Britannia - what I would say first and foremost is that I fully sympathise with your position - please do not take the posts above as anything other.

 

I have a track record (!) on these forums of expressing my personal opinion of the Housing Act 2004 as being nothing short of draconian towards landlords, and imposing completely disproportionate punishment upon minor breaches.

 

This is especially so in your case - the deposit is, after all, protected, and so there is absolutely zero loss or suffering to the tenant for such a minor breach.

 

So, all in, I sympathise very strongly. Were you to have a full deposit return and penalty against you, clearly you have (from a "moral" perspective) been very hard done by.

 

That said - unfortunately the law is clear.

 

However, you may well have a fighting chance in court.

 

The reason I say that is because it would appear the tenants are pursuing on the basis of the deposit not being protected within 14 days, rather than the initial requirements not being met.

 

As such, they are highly unlikely to bring a copy of the initial requirements to the courtroom as evidence. As it is not in your best interests to bring them, then neither will you.

 

Therefore, the tenant will have to go on the 14 day timescale ONLY - which is NOT an offence punishable via penalty under the Act (and as established by Draycott).

 

I sincerely hope that the "letter of the law" is not applied to you in court.

 

If you are looking for similar experiences, here is perhaps not the best place - it is relatively tenant-centric.

 

Try www.landlordzone.co.uk ...

 

Please let us know how you get on - I will be following eagerly.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, there is noone on this site who admits to being legally qualified.

 

On another site I use, where there are legally qualified people, they *also* do not fully understand how the legislation will apply.

 

The question you need to answer to help resolve your very unpleasant situation is:

 

- Does mydeposits have any "initial requirements" that have to be met when protecting a deposit?

 

"Initial requirements" is the term used in the legislation. DPS was found not to have any initial requirements in the Draycott case. I know that TDS *do* have quite strict initial requirements, and tenants have reported successfully suing their landlords even though the deposit was apparently protected, because at the end of the contract TDS refused to get involved.

 

I don't know what the mydeposits initial requirements are. I couldn't find any on their website (but I'm not a member) Mr Shed says they have some.

 

I suggest you ask them. Give them the full circumstances and ask them whether you have met their "initial requirements".

 

If they tell you that you have not met their initial requirements, you

still have the option to reprotect the deposit with DPS, assuming that they have not created some initial requirements since the court case (they tell me their legal team are reviewing the judgement).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve/Britannia - mydeposits initial requirements are here:

 

http://www.mydeposits.co.uk/pdf/mydeposits_Scheme_Rules_v3.pdf

 

That is an interesting point Steve makes regarding reprotecting with DPS. I'm not sure whether this will remove the liability, but as it is untested, it perhaps cant harm...

 

The reason I say it may not remove liability is that the deposit was protected and initial requirements not met - whether this is different in a subsequent deposit scheme does not neccessarily "remove" the earlier breach.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Shed please accept my sincere apologise if I came over as a bit of

a ‘t--t’ I only want to save having to pay out a large fine, when in fact I have a sick daughter aged (12) and I need the money for Kelly.

 

I am also having work problems where I could loose my job of 15 years and to have the stress of a tenant not paying rent that I have to cover on a £900 per month Buy to Let mortgage is really putting me under a lot of stress and then to have the tenants demand £3,400 plus cots, when I protected the deposit, soon after they moved in, is all a bit much.

I am very sorry if I offended you. I apologise.

 

Steve. Thank you very much as well for you help.

 

Thank you both very much for any help you can give me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry - no offence taken.

 

As I say, I sympathise strongly.

 

I think your main strong point is to keep the "initial requirements" component under your hat, and do not submit them as evidence.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously the mydeposits document says that you should "undertake to obtain protection" within 14 days. Even though the deposit wasn't protected within 14 days, the evidence points to Britannia having "undertaken" to do so!

 

I would definitely phone mydeposits. If they are prepared to say they *are* protecting the deposit, then that may be fine. If not, then find the money and get it protected in DPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a valid point Steve - one that I missed.

 

Guess it depends what the court take as "undertaking to obtain protection"!

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think I should do as Blitz said, send the tenants a letter stating :

 

"It might be worth an out of court letter explaining the Draycott v Hannells defence and any claim will be vigorously defended in court".

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it can harm.

 

It is certainly an absolute defence to their specific legal argument.

 

My only concern is that it may get them to look a bit closer at the HA....

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Britannia1

 

Sorry I hadn't read this thread earlier as along with MrShed, SteveM and the rest of the regular gang I would have given you my twopence worth as it were!

 

You seem to be in a bit of a pickle and understandably upset.

 

You ask for legal advice and of course we on this forum, although we offer our experiences and advice freely, are not qualified under the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007 to offer advice as being legal advice whether free or not.

 

So that's the serious stuff over and done with now lets move on.

 

To lighten your mood please allow me to indulge you in a little joke;

 

Man walks into solicitors office and demands to know how much the charges are.

Solicitor, unfazed by his forthright, abrupt approach says "I charge £500 to answer 3 questions!"

Man says "£500 for 3 questions, don't you think that's a bit steep?"

solicitor "yes I agree, now what's your third question?"

 

Silly I know but nonetheless somewhat factual!!

 

I posted on another thread a reply that I believe may have application in your circumstances, should this be the case I believe that the decision in the recent High Court decision of which you are aware may well work to your advantage in the pending claim against you.

 

As a technophobe I will now go off in search of my own post of which I speak and load it up shortly to this thread.

 

Please study carefully the reference to schedule 10 sections 9(1) & (2), you might see that in using, hopefully, the reply that the deposit is protected in accordance with the schemes rules combined with the decision in the recent High Court case may dissuade your pursuer from proceeding any further.

 

I must confess to having not read in any great detail your post and will correct that discourteous position before we speak again.

 

Lawdoctor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Britannia1

 

Hope this may be of some assistance. I will now familiarise myself with your post.

 

Always remember that in law if you can't find the answer you need then just view the question in a different way!

 

Schedule 10 section 9(1) and (2) provide you with a statutory right to request information from a scheme administrator as to whether or not a deposit is being held in accordance with the schemes rules. This provision demands that the schemes administrator responds to such a request as soon as is practical.

 

For your convenience I reproduce below the relevant provisions;

 

Notifications to tenants

 

9 (1) Every custodial scheme or insurance scheme must provide for the scheme administrator to respond as soon as is practicable to any request within sub-paragraph (2) made by the tenant under a shorthold tenancy.

 

(2) A request is within this sub-paragraph if it is a request by the tenant to receive confirmation that a deposit paid in connection with the tenancy is being held in accordance with the scheme.

 

I am not personally aware of any such request being made under the provisions quoted above but can see no reason in law for the scheme administrator to refuse a request if made under schedule 10 section 9(1) and (2) as mentioned above.

 

You should head up any request to the scheme administrators with the words TIME IS OF THE LEGAL ESSENCE (COURT CASE 26TH FEBRUARY 2010) and request email response. Limit your request simply to confirmation that the deposit was not protected and the request for confirmation that a deposit registered after the tenancy ended would or would not be held in accordance with the schemes rules.

 

Regards

Lawdoctor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawdoctor,

 

I am being offered some very good advice on here and by the Guild of Residential Landlords being a member. My main focus is to use the recent High Court case as my deposist.co.uk use similar wording, using this plus the tenants not paying £850 rent for 2 months. I now know there is information on the x 3 deposit penalty in the Housing Act wording, but you would think all 3 deposit schemes would have this wording in red accross the paperwork then every Landlord would focus on by hell or high water getting the deposit sorted within 14 dyas, in my case I had Kidney stones and was then feeling like I was on deaths doors steps, but I unders s,214 eveb this or death can be used to justify not complying. I do hope the Judge can see I am being ripped off or the tenants 15,000 or so friends that have moved over from Poland to Southampton will thinks its Las Vegas, with every Landlord a potential guaranteed cash win. Thanks for you input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...