moneyclaimonline to sue landlord for deposit, what do i do next?

[Missnka]

Hi,

My landlord withheld my £1000 deposit at the end of my tenancy. It had also never been secured in a deposit scheme. I used moneyclaimonline to sue for the deposit amount plus claim fees plus 8%. I assumed that it is the court that awards the 3x rent as punishment. The landlord has since sent a cheque for the claimed amount but I DEFINITELY want it to go to court because they caused me alot of stress and inconvenience for the 3 months that I was without it.

 

Moneyclaim online are of no help at all via their email helpdesk. What are my options? Should I have claimed for 3x the amount on my form? Can I still make it proceed to court? Is it too late to do anything else? should I claim again for punitive damages? I have not yet cashed the cheque because I am unable to find out more information.

 

I would appreciate any help! Thank you

[assisted blonde]

I thought you could only sue for 3 x deposit if it is not protected in a TDS and then only while you are a tennant. If you have taken action for the return of a deposit after you have left the tennancy and the landlord has complied before the court date I dont think the courts can do much else, TBH you have got your money back and that is what you wanted so i actually dont think trying to sue for stress etc is worth it now it willm only give you more hassle.

Edited December 10, 2012 by assisted blonde

[LaughingGirl]

Have to agree with Assisted Blonde on this - if you've had your full deposit returned to you, it may be better to simply settle for that. The exception would be if you could prove that you had somehow suffered a financial loss as a result of him unreasonably withholding the deposit.

[mariner51]

IIRC the Localism Act closed some LL loopholes ie

Action for deposit non-protection can be taken after end of T, poss up to 6 yr later

LL voluntary return of deposit may lessen the 1-3X penalty

Any claim for non-protection should be via County Court multi-track route, initial fee ~£1K and pot for unlimited defence costs in England, if rejected.

Judge decides what level of penalty to impose, not T.

Stress & inconvenience are not suitable grounds unless quantifiable financial loss can be shown.

IMO the Localism Act missed a trick, any non-protection penalty should be paid mainly to Exchequer, not T, as it has been shown in many cases that T suffered no sig financial loss through non-protection (compensation) but errant LLs should be 'fined'.

[raydetinu]

way to go M51