No PI for original or renewal AST.

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

  • MdeB
    replied
    Originally posted by themysciramama View Post
    I'm wondering, because we signed the AST before we paid the deposit, would any of the deposit info in the AST be sufficient to keep them safe from me claiming or would everything had to have been served AFTER the day I paid the deposit? If the latter is the case, then we have received absolutely nothing for PI.
    If the contract contained a section that provided the prescribed information (including the required certification words), then that is a technicality that would require a judge to determine; it could be argued both ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • themysciramama
    replied
    I've just been checking through things and I'm not sure if this could make things more of a problem?

    We signed our 12m AST on 23/05/17 for it to commence on 01/06/17. The deposit information in the AST wasn't complete.

    On the part where it mentions the deposit, it says the tenant WILL pay £2630 for the deposit. We hadn't yet paid it and didn't until 30/05/17.
    I then had an email from the agent the same day we paid the deposit, saying they would send the PI within 30 days.

    Obviously they knew they had to still serve it again and properly, but they didn't.

    I'm wondering, because we signed the AST before we paid the deposit, would any of the deposit info in the AST be sufficient to keep them safe from me claiming or would everything had to have been served AFTER the day I paid the deposit? If the latter is the case, then we have received absolutely nothing for PI.

    Hope that makes sense?

    Should they have also told me it was the agents that would be managing the deposit with DPS? Because of that, can it still be the landlord I take to court or would it have to be the agent, as it was them managing the DPS account?

    Leave a comment:


  • themysciramama
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mariner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • themysciramama
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Yes, I think that's right.

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • KTC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • KTC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    What's an "invalid deposit"?

    215B addresses PI because 213(6)(a) is the section mandating that PI is served.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    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.,

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X