Used MCOL not N208 - Next step?

[Chilled]

The very brief background on the story is that my other half rented a cottage with her sister seven months ago.

Over the winter the boiler failed nearly every other day, and the LL 'fixed' it every time, only for it to break 24-48 hrs later. Skip a few months and they finally had enough an told him fix it or discount the rent. He got angry and intimidated the both of them, shouted he will give them two months notice.

They handed their notice in the next morning, and then found out he never used a TDS, as I used MCOL a while back for the same problem ( I settled without going further in the end ) I recommended them taking it further using TDS.

He acknowledge the letter and inspected the now empty house, and has made a long list of very petty issues with what needs fixing and what he will claim for.

Today the girls received this letter.

hxxp://yfrog.com/j3dscf1120pj

My girlfriend did solely sign, yet both the girl where present, but he stated it would only need the one signature. As far as the council tax goes, everything is legit, and the sister is a full time student.
He has been accepting rent from my gf account, and the sister paying my gf.


Sadly it was my fault they submitted the MCOL not the now relevant N208, and now seem to be a bit puzzled about the best step to take next.

Do we proceed with the MCOL, or forfeit and start a new N208, but with the added bagged of the LL claims against the girls?
I find the LL a obnoxious and intimidating charlatan, and would like to pursue this further, so I assume it's bite the bullet and occur some ££ lawyer costs if we want to fight him?

[Chilled]

Just had some quick photos of the original contract and it seems like a very old 1996 version of the Housing Act drafted agreement. And the fact that it states in this agreement that he will hold the deposit, and makes no mention of the DPS would therefore once again means he has fallen short?

I also had a quick look and found a 4.3.2. ( Section 4 is ending agreement ) that states that if the Tenant breaches any conditions, and refused to pay the LL reasonable compensation AFTER being told by writing of the breach it can be ended.

That to me sound like if he plays the " I didn't agree that both where tenants" then they can quash it by asking for a copy of the letter sent regarding the breach.

I'm that angry now, with the added fact my girlfriend is getting very upset, I'm considering footing the bill to get a good lawyer on the case asap, as from a non legal mind I see a load of little counter-play cropping up.

[westminster]

Are the girls trying to claim for deposit protection non-compliance? (I'm assuming so from the mention of form N208 -v- MCOL).

If your girlfriend is the sole tenant named on the AST, then the claim should not have been issued with both girls as co-claimant (again I'm assuming from what you've said). And, as you also seem to be aware, claims for non-compliance should be issued on form N208.

It is possible that the defendant may be able to claim their costs if your girlfriend discontinues the claim. But only their costs up to the date of discontinuance. It is also possible that you may be able to apply to amend the claim. You could also do nothing and see what happens (inadvisable).

However, be aware that there was a high court case last month, therefore binding on lower courts, Draycott -v- Hannells. The judgment said that the penalty does not apply if the deposit is protected late with the DPS. This gives the defendant a very easy route to avoid the penalty, assuming the tenancy is still current and has not formally ended (otherwise, it might be slightly greyer territory).

The solicitor's letter is typical of its genre, designed to threaten and intimidate you into discontinuance. However, in this case it might be advisable to back down; if you are not inclined to do so, you should seek legal advice, because if your gf proceeds and loses, your gf could be liable for all the defendant's legal costs.

[westminster]

Just had some quick photos of the original contract and it seems like a very old 1996 version of the Housing Act drafted agreement. And the fact that it states in this agreement that he will hold the deposit, and makes no mention of the DPS would therefore once again means he has fallen short?

Read the statute, link below. There is no requirement to mention deposit protection in the tenancy agreement. Albeit one of the three schemes - the TDS - requires clauses to be included in the TA, but that comes under the heading of the scheme's "initial requirements".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004..._en_19#pt6-ch4

I also had a quick look and found a 4.3.2. ( Section 4 is ending agreement ) that states that if the Tenant breaches any conditions, and refused to pay the LL reasonable compensation AFTER being told by writing of the breach it can be ended.

That to me sound like if he plays the " I didn't agree that both where tenants" then they can quash it by asking for a copy of the letter sent regarding the breach.

I've no idea what you're driving at. Either both girls are named on the TA or not. If not, then the other one isn't a tenant. Breach of contract doesn't come into it.