No PI for original or renewal AST.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by KTC View Post
    In case you were wondering themysciramama, that's suggest to your landlord that they take legal advice, not legal action.
    Thanks, good catch!

    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      The law has changed recently, so that it would now be one claim
      I was not aware of this.
      Please could you point me at it?

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by MdeB View Post
        I was not aware of this.
        Please could you point me at it?
        Deregulation Act 2015, which adds section 215B to the Housing Act 2004.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #19
          215B seems to say that a valid deposit on the original tenancy is considered a valid one for the new tenancy, but doesn't seem to say anything about invalid deposits.,

          Comment


            #20
            What's an "invalid deposit"?

            215B addresses PI because 213(6)(a) is the section mandating that PI is served.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              All s215B say is that if a deposit was received for an earlier tenancy AND it was protected with an authorised scheme AND prescribed information was given AND when a replacement tenancy starts (and per Superstrike the deposit was received from and repaid to the landlord for said replacement tenancy) the deposit remains protected in accordance with the same scheme the last time PI was given, then the deposit is treated as protected correctly and PI don't have to be given again.

              It doesn't say that the requirements and the penalty don't apply again. In fact, it implies the opposite, that it does apply again, but a landlord in the stated circumstances are treated as having complied already.
              I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

              I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

              Comment


                #22
                I agree and said the same thing above in relation to this specific case.
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                In which case I think it's two failures to issue the PI.
                Because the landlord didn't do it the first time, the replacement tenancy also had a failure.
                But we've had people posting here saying that a judge decided otherwise.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #23
                  One for which the initial requirements of an authorised scheme have not been complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit (ignoring any requirement to take particular steps within any specified period); or

                  one for which the requirements of section 213(5) and (6)(a) have not been complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit when it is held in connection with the original tenancy (ignoring any deemed compliance under section 215A(4)),

                  So it seems to me that a complete failure to provide PI means that the preconditions for 215B are not met.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    But we've had people posting here saying that a judge decided otherwise.
                    I'm pretty sure it was me.

                    There's no binding authority on the matter that I know of. I'm sure I can find you report of county court cases where only one penalty was awarded despite multiple tenancies, and I can definitely find you report of cases where one penalty each were awarded. If you're a tenant in such cases, you'll be well advised to claim for a penalty each. Whereas if you're a landlord, who don't want to settle, you'll be advised that you can try and argue for only one.
                    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                    I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      Deregulation Act 2015, which adds section 215B to the Housing Act 2004.
                      So, from the above discussion (and re-reading S2.3-215x), it was not a change to say "if you did not comply for initial tenancy, then you do not have to comply for any replacement tenancy", it was a change to say "if you did comply, then you are deemed to have complied for any replacement tenancy"

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Yes, I think that's right.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Back again.
                          We were awarded our full deposit back today
                          The adjudicator saw that our landlords had entered and prevented us from fulfilling our end of tenancy obligations while the the tenancy was still valid.

                          When they did that, they then, 2 days after the proper end of the tenancy, '''disposed" of what I've added up to be almost £3k worth of belongings that we were yet to retrieve. They ignored our requests on how to get them back.
                          They sent the DPS photos that have all of our stuff in, too, which I have copies of now, to use as evidence.

                          Can I add this onto the no money claim or would I have to pay a different fee, given its a known amount (that I have receipts for)?

                          I'm going to seek some legal help anyway, but have got a busy couple of weeks for now, so just wanted a rough idea if anyone could advise please?
                          ​​​

                          ​​​​​​Also, a bit off topic. They opened my housing benefit top up letter, confirming the end of my claim because of moving and accused me of fraud. Any idea if I could add that in, somehow? I can't find any reliable info on opening someone else's mail.

                          Thanks

                          Comment


                            #28
                            I think you are going to have sue the LL in SCC for your 'stolen' items, if you have proof LL resp, unless part 8 proc will permit such an additional claim.
                            Normally ADR cannot consider deposit if it was unprotected, unless I am out of touch.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by themysciramama View Post
                              Can I add this onto the no money claim or would I have to pay a different fee, given its a known amount (that I have receipts for)?
                              It is a separate claim.

                              If you take legal advice, it might transpire that a solicitors letter prompts a settlement, so no court action is required.
                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                                It is a separate claim.

                                If you take legal advice, it might transpire that a solicitors letter prompts a settlement, so no court action is required.
                                Thank you, sounds better than going to court.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X