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 If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 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 756050. 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)     Thw 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 Firrst 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.  A 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

Failure to protect the tenancy deposit and % of deposit has been returned as a check


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3942 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

Dear All,

 

Could you please advise on what would be the most optimal course of action in the situation as per below in order to claim against the non-compliant landlord with Housing Act 2004?

 

The situation in few bullet points:

1. We have signed a 12 months fixed term AST with a private landlord starting from July 30th 2011 and then renewed with a new AST contract on July 30th 2012 with a new increased rent and the second fixed term has ended on July 29th 2013. The deposit of £1,494 has been paid in July 2011 to a letting agency (property was let as LET ONLY) and the letting agency has transferred it to the private landlord.

 

2. Shortly before the end of the second fixed term (ended on July 29th 2013) we have run into a disagreement with the landlord over his long overdue flooring repairs which he hasn't completed before the agreed date July 5th 2013 (we have vacated the property for two weeks to allow him to complete the flooring repairs affected by a damp occurred long ago and before our initial tenancy started back in 2011) after which we were due to return back from holidays with two small children (4 years old and 6 months old). Upon our return the floors were missing and their condition has been totally unsafe for little kids which has later been confirmed by the Council Environmental Officer who visitted the property and confirmed a tripping and feet laciteration hazard in an official HHSRS report.

 

3. After I have threatened a legal action to complete the floor repairs - the landlord become somewhat 'unstable' and 'emotional' (exact quotes of his series of messages from him were: 'don't tempt me you stupid little dick' and 'I will come over, punch you in the face, cut your head off and will **** into the hole' - all these have been reported to local police shortly after') and he has served Section 21 to evict us as soon as possible despite the the fact that the AST fixed terms is to end within less than one month. Since he threatened that 'he holds my deposit and will not return until this matter is resolved' I have started to look around to understand what the story about the deposits and finally found out that the deposit should have been protected with one of the Tenancy Deposit Schemes and that the certain prescribed information has to be served to me within 30 days after the deposit has been paid or 30 days after April 2012 when when the new Housing Act 2004 amended legislation (I think it's called The Localism Act 2011) has come into the force.

 

4. Shortly after discovering this fact I have searched through the various schemes trying to find my deposit and also requested the confirmation in writing from each of the schemes. All schemes have come back to me by email and confirmed that this property has not been registered with them and I was also not able to find it through my own searches on their web sites.

 

5. While I was still a tenant (on July 11th 2013) I have sent two postal (recorded) letters to the landlord requesting to provide the status of my deposit protection and to protect the deposit if it has not been protected yet. These have been ignored / unanswered.

 

6. At this moment the tenancy fixed term has ended (on July 29th 2013) and we professionally cleaned the property throughout (have an invoice) and have moved out from the property

 

7. Since there was no inventory check-in, the landlord has asked me to simply had over the keys to a letting agent and said that the deposit with all the deductions will be returned after 'inspection'. Shorting after end of tenancy I have sent the landlord another recorded letter (template has been taken from shelter) to request of the return of the deposit within 14 days. I had to track his new home address (or rather an old home address as he seems like moved back to his original home which he used when purchased the lease on the property he rented to us) through the land registry in order to get this letter signed for by him as the initial letter send to his mailing address specified in the AST contract has returned with 'Gone Away' sticker.

 

 

-----------------------------------------

8. Now as I am writing this I am waiting for for a postal letter from the landlord with a cheque for the remaining sum of the deposit after deductions which are unknown as of yet (hopefully the breakdown of costs of repairs will be in that letter) - although I fail to understand what damages he have come up with as a 'revenge'.

 

The question is as per the first paragraph of this post and in particular I would like to understand what is the optimal step forward here:

 

1. Accept the cheque and all the deductions (whatever they are) and then take him to county court for 'Failure to comply with Housing Act 2004': i.e. to claim just for 3x Deposit amount which would be £1,494 * 3 = £4,482 and is below £5,000 limit for small claims procedure

 

or

 

2. Don't accept the cheque and take him to the county court for deposit return and for 'Failure to comply with Housing Act 2004' and therefore claim for deposit return and 3xDeposit: i.e. to claim for £1,494 * 4 = £5,976 and which is above the limit for small claims procedures which might mean that I would be risking to end up paying his solicitor's costs if I lose this case (for whatever reason)

 

And in addition to this - are these still valid concerns in terms of potential appeal against my claim?

 

- Because of the fact that the tenancy has started before April 2012 - can I still claim after my tenancy has ended - i.e. I am no longer a tenant and in Option 1 above the deposit has been returned back to me? I.e. Can the landlord appeal here to a precedent appeal court ruling (can't recall the particulars of the ruling) that 'non-tenant that have deposit returned cannot claim for return of the deposit again' and that claiming just for 3xDeposit compensation isn't allowed?

 

- Does the new legislation (The Localism Act 2011) that came into force on April 2012 actually apply in my case? i.e. my first tenancy in this property has started before April 2012 and before the new legislation and contract got renewed in July 2012. If I am not mistaken the new legislation states that 'all tenancies commenced or in effect on or after April 2012 should have deposit registered within 30 days after April 2012'.

 

I would really appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this. All I am trying to make sure is that whichever option I go with from the above - I will not end up going beyond 'small claims procedure limit' and that the landlord has no option whatsoever to appeal against the claim/court ruling based on past precedents 'that ex-tenants can't claim if deposit is already returned'.

 

Many thanks,

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Localism Act does apply to the tenancy that recently ended.

 

Your problem here is not whether the law applies, but whether a judge will find in your favour - there aren't any precedents as yet and it is still up the individual judge whether he/she will award a penalty figure for non-compliance. Yes, it all seems straightforward, but it's not. For a start since it's untested, the likelihood is that you will need a solicitor and or barrister once in court. It is fast track, not small claims, so costs to start the case are more expensive. If you win, the LL is likely to challenge it, and you could find yourself tied up in litigation for many months.

 

You may be better off writing to the LL and stating that he has failed to comply with the law, and that unless he returns your deposit in full, without any deductions, you will consider legal action to claim up to three times the deposit as a penalty. If the LL has any sense, he'll cut his losses, return the deposit and you won't be any worse off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Localism Act does apply to the tenancy that recently ended.

Could you please advise why it does not apply as I thought that the tenancy has been in effect on and after April 2012 and also has been renewed in July 2012?

 

It is fast track, not small claims, so costs to start the case are more expensive.

So far most of the material on the web that I have studied including shelter have suggested that claims under £5,000 are treated as 'small claims'. Why would this be a fast track?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I suggest you re-read what you quoted in the first paragraph - it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

Secondly, small claims limit is £10k, so seems Shelter's website is out of date. Thirdly, your claim is for a penalty, not a 'small claim', so it's not heard in the small claims track.

Edited by Lea_HTH
Re-numbered...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I suggest you re-read what you quoted in the first paragraph - it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

I might have lost among the meanings of what was quoted to be honest... my apologies.

 

If I read the Localism Act 2011 again - one of the amendments do allow the court proceedings to be initiated if the tenancy has recently ended and in the penalty section the word 'also' has been removed in relation to no longer 'linking together' the court order to return of the deposit and the court order to pay the penalty which would mean that after the return of the deposit there is still a possibility for a claim for the penalty separately.

 

I am just trying to understand why you have said that the Localism Act 2011 does not apply for the tenancy that has recently ended if to the contrary the Localism Act 2011 actual states that the court proceedings can be brought forward if the tenancy has recently ended.

 

 

Here is my attempt to compile the amended Housing Act 2004 s214 according to the changes to this legislation in the Localism Act 2011 that came into force since April 2012:

 

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 section 213(3) or (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.

(1A)Subsection (1) also applies in a case where the tenancy has ended, and in such a case the reference in subsection (1) to the tenant is to a person who was a tenant under the tenancy.

 

(2)Subsections (3) and (4) apply in the case of an application under subsection (1) if the tenancy has not ended and the court—

(a) is satisfied that section 213(3) or (6) 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.

(2A)Subsections (3A) and (4) apply in the case of an application under subsection (1) if the tenancy has ended (whether before or after the making of the application) and the court—

(a)is satisfied that section 213(3) or (6) 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.

(3A)The court may order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay all or part of it to the applicant within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(4)The court must ([AlexanderB]the word 'also' has gone, so there is no link between return of the deposit and a penalty) order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(5)Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.

(6)In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

 

Understood your point regarding 'small claim' vs 'fast track', thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just trying to understand why you have said that the Localism Act 2011 does not apply for the tenancy that has recently ended

 

Try reading what I actually wrote instead of inserting additional words, then you'll be less confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try reading what I actually wrote instead of inserting additional words, then you'll be less confused.

 

My apologies again - I have somehow misread it as I was too afraid to see 'does not apply' :)

 

 

 

Many thanks for your help!!

Edited by AlexanderB
Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies again - I have somehow misread it as I was too afraid to see 'does not apply' :)

 

 

 

Many thanks for your help!!

 

I got a further message saying that you still hadn't got it, before you amended it to the above.

 

Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ.

 

I do admit i might have been a little silly not reading what has been written sometimes. Apologies ;)

 

Just as a quick update on the issue - I am appointing a solicitor for this as it seems to me the fast track or multi track assignment for these types of claims would mean that I will have much more chances to fail just for not following process correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you taken the matter to your local council housing dept? many like to keep an eye on rogue landlords.

 

Yes, we had a visit from Royal Borough Environmental Health Officer who visitted the property while in tenancy and he confirmed a tripping and feet laceration hazard in the official HHSRS report (which has been sent to the landlord and a copy to us) which also states that his indemnity insurance could be affected if these hazards are not removed. He has also requested the copies of gas safety and Deposit protection certificates. I can post here a scanned copy of the report (without names and addresses) of it if that would be beneficial.

 

I am not sure how this report would have any impact on the claim in question - however it could help to indicate one of the reasons why we are pursuing it (i.e. deposit return, humiliation, threats, failure to complete floor repairs and as result - one month living with unsafe floors having paid rent in full).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...