Complicated story....need help on deposit issues

[jay112]

Hello,

 

Ok this is long but if you have time please read and any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

I moved out of my house in march 2002. When i rented the house i got it through an agancy. The agencys fees (to the landlord) was 1 months rent per year he wanted to rent the house. He decided to rent the house for 1 year but when he signed the contract they had changed it from when he seen it originaly, from a one year to a two year contract. Hence they kept the one months rent and the one months deposit to cover their fees.

So when i moved funnily i moved to another property of the same landlord in 2002. Because he didnt have the deposit and he said he was taking the agency to court to reslove the issue we decided that he would pay me half the deposit back until he resolved the issue with the agency.

 

He took them to court and he won the case......But because the acency keeps changing their name he has been unable to get the money back.

 

Now that i am moving from this house(over 5 years later) the whole issue has come up again and he is saying that this is not his problem and that he done what he can to get the money back and basically that he will not pay me the half of the deposit he ows me.

 

To top this all off......we are living in a shared house which 2 years ago had the combi-boiler replaced. He got some botch job done on replacing it and ripped part of the kitchen floor up. took all the cupboards off the walls and never put anything back, so for the last two years our kitchen has been full of mice and most of the cupboards are unuseable, there is a big gap between the back of the bottom cupboards and the walls and none of the doors on the cupboards close properly.

Because of this....i have not paid rent for the past few months. The rent i ow him comes to almost exactly what he ows me from the deposit from the previous house. But he is threatning me with courts and bailifs etc.

 

Do i have any case at all? What can i do?

Is he responsible to pay me the full deposit from the old house back even though the agency "tricked him into signing a 2 year contract?

Sould i even be paying rent to live with a kitchen like this?

Is there a no-win no-fee kind of solicitors that can help with this kind of case in london?

Any help or advise would be great.

 

Thank You

Jay

[demon_x_slash]

Unfortunately for your landlord, he is the one liable for the return of your deposit and no one else; your contract was with the landlord, and it is to him you should direct any court action to reclaim what you are owed.

 

With regards to witholding rent, I'll take the line that I always have - if the property is in enough disrepair to warrant witholding rent, then it's in sufficient disrepair to contact your local Council's Housing Officer to get a report produced. If your landlord then tries to counterclaim for 'arrears' caused by your witholding of rent, you've got an official report justifying the witholding. IMHO, witholding rent is the last resort as it can lead to eviction and loss of goodwill, and IMHO is not justifiable unless you have a) concrete proof of extreme or dangerous disrepair and b) exhausted all other options (recorded delivery letters to landlord, Council complaints, CAB consultation). Anyway, that's my two pennies' worth with regards to the rent situation.

 

You say that you're coming to the end of your tenancy with this person - I would say, good. Remember, he's got to serve you with the correct s21. notice in order to end said tenancy. Take plenty of pictures of the state of the place after his 'renovations' and make sure that any damage that you have caused is rectified before you move out - this way, he will have no further excuses for witholding your deposit, and you can commence with Small Claims action if he owes you any more.

[Ed999]

I agree that your contract is with the landlord. You can sue him under the original tenancy agreement for the return of the amount of the deposit, plus interest.

 

But you must sue him within 6 years of the date the original agreement was signed, because contract debts are only recoverable for 6 years.

 

The other issues are irrelevent, as they did not arise under the tenancy agreement (i.e. the contract) in question. They are the subject of a separate contract, so the landlord may have difficulties persuading a court to take them into account.

 

Be sure to issue your county court claim before the six year time limit expires, or the money is lost for good.

 

Your claim can be as simple as this:

 

"I claim the sum of £______ plus interest from (name of landlord), being a debt arising under a contract dated (date) made between us relating to (address of property). I paid the sum of £_____ to him on that date as a rent deposit on the commencement of a tenancy of that property, and although he repaid part of that sum to me on (date) the sum claimed remains outstanding."

[jay112]

We mobved into the house in december 2000 so its more than 6 years....but we only moved out in March 2002. Is it too late??

[Planner]

Is it not six years from the date OF LAST CONTACTconcerning the debt?, obviously this would have been March 2002 when they moved to the new property and again now when they are moving out of the property. All perfectly within the time limits.

 

Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

 

Ed999 - persumably under your reasoning, if i moved into a property in june 2004 and moved out in December 2010 I could'nt expect my deposit to be returned as I paid it over six years ago?

[jay112]

Really? Sounds good.

I have a letter stating the date we moved out in march 2002....which was when the ball started rolling about the deposit issues and i have asked the landlord on a number of occasions about when we would get the money back over the past few years. But its not until now...when we are moving out and will loose contact with the landlord that i want to resolve this once and for all.

 

Afterall...in my opinion....he wouldnt have taken the agency to court if it wasnt his liability!!???

 

I recieved a letter from his "solicitor" today. Stating that the agency ripped us, the tennents off, not the landlord...i quote...

"What happened was the agency preyed on 4 gullable and innocent tennents in order to maximise their profit.This is not the fault of our client that they have taken your funds. Our client on your behalf has taken the agency to court."

 

The agency tricked the landlord into signing a two year contract, so this ment he had to pay them the months rent and our deposit as fees. Its his faulf for not checking what he was signing.

 

What the landlord is trying to claim is that because the money(the deposit) never reached his account, he is not responsible to pay it back and we should sue the agency if we want it back.

[jay112]

also...the post code on the letter is E7 NumberNumberletter......which looks odd to me....do all postcodes in london not end in two letters?

[callumsgran]

also...the post code on the letter is E7 NumberNumberletter......which looks odd to me....do all postcodes in london not end in two letters?

Lol London has all sorts of postcodes, no idea why though!

[jay112]

Ok, i finally found the contract from the original house. it turns out that the deposit is the same amount as i woe him in rent in this current house.

I also found paperwork stating that in march 2002 he was paying me half the deposit back because the agency was still holding the deposit. We had verbally agreed that when he took them to court, or when i stop renting from him and move away he would pay the other half of the damage deposit back.

 

This was only a verbal agreement....The paperwork i have states:

"ON AGREEANCE WITH ORIGINAL TENENTS HALF THE DAMAGE DEPOSIT STILL RETAINED BY INTRODUCTORY AGENT WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE 1ST MARCH RENT IN AGREEANCE WITH LANDLORD"

 

PLEASE ANY ADVISE ON THIS WOULD BE GREAT: Does this make it sound like we agreed to only get half the deposit back??

We verbally agreed that he would take them to court...which he did and won the case but hasnt got the money back yet. Or that when i move out of his second house(wheer i am moving from now) he would pay the money back.

 

 

About the postcodes....

Well im just doing some reasearch on the "solicitors" letter he sent me....and seems the postcode does not exist.

From the Postcode definitions: The second half of the Postcode is always consistent numeric, alpha, alpha format.....when the postcode on this letter ends in numeric, numeric, alpha!!

 

Also the letter gives me 5 days to reply to the client(the landlord) and it does not even have an address or telephone number on it for him.

 

I know his mumber but i dont know his current address....i arranged a meeting with him lastnight and he cancelled it!

 

The letter is also not even on headed paper and so seems like he is trying to put the ****s up me and make me pay up the money.

[Ed999]

Is it not six years from the date OF LAST CONTACTconcerning the debt?, obviously this would have been March 2002 when they moved to the new property and again now when they are moving out of the property. All perfectly within the time limits.

 

Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

 

Ed999 - persumably under your reasoning, if i moved into a property in june 2004 and moved out in December 2010 I could'nt expect my deposit to be returned as I paid it over six years ago?

 

 

The link you rely on states clearly that the time limit is 6 years (for a contract not under seal), and adds this :

 

"If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment."

 

So the question becomes: did the landlord acknowledge the debt in writing within 6 years from the date of the original payment of the deposit? (I am assuming the deposit was paid on the date the tenancy agreement was signed, which is what usually happens.) If so, a fresh 6 year limitation period arises.

 

This was a 6 month tenancy, so it was not in the intention of the parties that the tenancy would last more than six years. And indeed it did not. It terminated in 2002, after two years.

 

It is no good blaming me for the length of the statutory limitation period. In my opinion, I see no grounds for optimism. The original debt appears to be time-barred.

 

If there was a sufficient written acknowledgement of the debt, by the landlord, in 2002 when the old tenancy ended and the new tenancy was entered into then a further 6 year period would have begun in 2002.

 

The question is whether the paperwork from 2002 constitutes such an acknowledgement. It is possible that it may, from what Jay112 says.

[MrShed]

However, the deposit only becomes a "debt" once the tenancy has expired, as it is only at this point that the deposit becomes repayable to the tenant? Therefore under 6 years? Planner makes a good point that if you are a tenant for more than 6 years under your reasoning that you have no legal grounds for reclaiming the deposit, which is clearly ridiculous, and so I would say that my argument would be valid.

[jay112]

Thanks guys...i am very greatful for the help you are giving.

 

Yes the landlord did pay half the deposit in 2002 and i have it written on a typed note from him, however.....

What i need to know is that if what i quoted from this note in my last reply is enough evidence that the landlord paid half the debt in 2002 and that it is good enough proof to use. Or the way it is written......does it make it sound like we settled for juat half payment of the deposit?? This is what is scaring me coz the wording of it does not mention anything about future payment of te other half.

 

Thanks again

Jay

[Planner]

Is there any reference in your AST to a deposit being paid and how much (that would be the AST you recieved back in 2002)?

 

I think Ed999 has over complicated a rather typical issue by reference to the limitations act. I would just follow the usual steps for depsoit return that are outlined on various threads on this site.

 

A letter asking for the deposits return in 14 days. Then a letter before action giving 14 days to return otherwise legal action (include the N1 county court form in there). And then submit the claim.

 

The limitations thing is a bit on a non-issue.

[jay112]

The contract we recieved originaly in 2000 when we moved in says the deposit will be held by the landlord as security and will be repayable to the tenant only after the end of the tenancy after deduction of any sums rewuired to compensate the landlord of any breach of obligation on the tenants part.

 

We did pay 100 for painting etc when we left thet house.

 

The AST we recieved in 2002, when we were leaving the house does not mention anything about a deposit. Just gives us the date we must have moved out of the house by, and has our names and address and the name and address the landlord lived at at that time.

 

hmmm

[Aequitas]

Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 says:

 

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

 

The "date on which the cause of action accrued" is the date on which the deposit was to be repaid by the landlord, not the date that the tenant paid the deposit to the landlord.

[Ed999]

Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 says:

 

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

 

The "date on which the cause of action accrued" is the date on which the deposit was to be repaid by the landlord, not the date that the tenant paid the deposit to the landlord.

 

 

I disagree. The contract debt arose when the contract was formed and the deposit was paid. That was at the very start of the letting.

 

What is your authority for saying that time began to run only when the landlord refused to repay it (at the end of the tenancy)? THat's not what section 5 says.

[MrShed]

Prior to the end of the tenancy, the deposit wasnt a "debt". Therefore at this time, the "cause of action" occurred.

 

Or, another argument. To my knowledge, the Limitation Act means that it is 6 years since acknowledgement of the debt. You could argue that by the landlord continuing the tenancy, in which it details the deposit details, the landlord acknowledges he holds/owes the deposit until the end of the tenancy.

 

I think overall it would be easy to argue that the deposit becomes "owed" at the end of the tenancy, not the beginning - both in common sense terms, and legal.

[onlynameleft]

The cause of action only accrued once the debt became due for repayment and was not repaid, i.e. at the end of the tenancy. The action follows a breach of contract and it is the date of the breach that is relevant and not the date of the contract itself.

That is what section 5 says.

Otherwise you could never enforce repayment of a rent deposit paid on commencement of, say, a 7 year lease (probably more relevant to commercial property but the same rules apply).

[Guest simhar]

Mr.Shed - what a glowing CV !!!

 

Cheers

 

simhar

[Ed999]

The cause of action only accrued once the debt became due for repayment and was not repaid, i.e. at the end of the tenancy. The action follows a breach of contract and it is the date of the breach that is relevant and not the date of the contract itself.

That is what section 5 says.

Otherwise you could never enforce repayment of a rent deposit paid on commencement of, say, a 7 year lease (probably more relevant to commercial property but the same rules apply).

 

 

Rent deposits are not paid on 7 year commercial lettings, so the point would not arise.

 

The reason why the Limitation Act 1980 provides for a renewal of the limitation period is precisely because of this possibility of repayment falling due more than 6 years after the debt was created (by the paying of the deposit).

 

IMHO, the debt is created by the tenant paying the rent deposit to the landlord at the start of the tenancy. The o/p needs to recognise the risk that his original right of action may be time-barred; and he had better take that risk seriously if he plans to sue.

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

[MrShed]

You have not really proven your point Ed, but only stated it as fact, when all the evidence would point to the contrary. If there is no possible doubt, how so? Is there case law to suggest this?

[Planner]

ED999, how does you argument that the deposit is limitation barred in light of section 32 of the act;

 

32.--

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  [*]the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....

  [*](2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. . . .

Think that would cover it dont you? (I still consider the deposit isnt barred, but this outs another hole in your argument).

[Ed999]

Simple. There was no fraud, concealment or mistake in this case. Therefore section 32 has no possible application.

 

I presume you are implying that the o/p made a "mistake" in not asking for repayment, but this is to misunderstand section 32. Mistake in this context relates to the payment of the money: but he did not make the payment, in the year 2000, by mistake. He made it intentionally, and it was actually due.

 

I note both of your comments, but section 5(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 clearly says -

 

(3) Where a demand in writing for repayment of the debt under a contract of loan to which this section applies is made by or on behalf of the creditor (or, where there are joint creditors, by or on behalf of any one of them) section 5 of this Act shall thereupon apply as if the cause of action to recover the debt had accrued on the date on which the demand was made.

 

The details posted by the o/p make it clear that he failed to make such a demand within the primary limitation period of 6 years which expired in 2006.

 

Accordingly, although such a demand would have extended the period of limitation, he did not avail himself of the opportunity to do so.

 

As I previously stated, citing Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts :

 

"If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment."

 

The possibility therefore exists that a fresh period of limitation began in 2002, notwithstanding that the original debt is time-barred.

[Planner]

Think you have misunderstood Ed999. Im not arguing that the o/p made a mistake in paying the money in 2000 im arguing that the LL as a possible defendant has witheld infomration from the tenant;

 

b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.

 

The tenant has been told by the Landlord that his deposit from property 1 has been transfered when the new AST started and now forms the deposit of property 2, when in fact it doesnt. Clear case of fraud and concellement in my opinion, hence ANOTHER reason why the 6 year limitation period isnt relevant in this case. The LL has knowing lied to the tenant about his deposit and thus has invalidated the limitations argument in light of section 32 (1b).

 

If you then read on;

 

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....

 

The plantiff (tenant) has now discovered the concealment, so, NOW is when the limitations period begins not 6 years previously. Making the rest of your post about written request etc irrelevant.