unsuccessful tenancy deposit sceme case. advice needed.

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

    unsuccessful tenancy deposit sceme case. advice needed.

    Hi. My previous landlord had failed to deposit my bond under any sceme. After advice from a law centre and the courts i proceded with a part 8 claim for the £600 deposit and x3 penalty plus costs of £175. On the day of the hearing the judge said this case is not a part 8 and is a part 7. Had i done a part 7 claim i would of won the case. The landlord said he would write a cheque for 600 today. The judge accepted that and only awarded me £95 costs on top and said if i don't cash the cheque i will lose everything.. So i have lost out on money because of what i was told. Does anybody know what i should do next or any advice really. Part 7 is an option if the cheque bounces but i doubt it. Should i cash it in or fight on

    #2
    Originally posted by kevin2011 View Post
    On the day of the hearing the judge said this case is not a part 8 and is a part 7.
    The judge was wrong. Under Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules, deposit non-compliance claims under s.214 Housing Act 2004 must use Part 8 procedure. See
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/c...rts/part56.htm (and the Practice Direction)

    Does anybody know what i should do next or any advice really. Part 7 is an option if the cheque bounces but i doubt it. Should i cash it in or fight on
    Cash it.

    Following the judgment in Gladehurst v Hashemi earlier this year (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/604.html - esp para. 37) the tenant has no claim against LL under s.214 after the tenancy has ended.

    Comment


      #3
      The judge awarded part 7 costs as the claim was a part 8 which cost me costs£175. Should i of been awarded the costs i paid. If it was moved to part 7 on the day i would of been awarded x3. So Im confused why 75 was awarded.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by westminster View Post
        The judge was wrong. Under Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules, deposit non-compliance claims under s.214 Housing Act 2004 must use Part 8 procedure. See
        http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/c...rts/part56.htm (and the Practice Direction)

        Your quote says...


        (3) Where the claim is an unopposed claim –


        (a) the claimant must use the Part 8 procedure, but the following rules do not apply –


        (i) rule 8.5; and


        (ii) rule 8.6; and


        (b) Omitted


        (c) the court will give directions about the future management of the claim following receipt of the acknowledgment of service.


        (4) Where the claim is an opposed claim the claimant must use the Part 7 procedure.

        (Practice Direction 56 contains provisions about evidence, including expert evidence in opposed claims)


        This is opposed surely?!
        [I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by kevin2011 View Post
          The judge awarded part 7 costs as the claim was a part 8 which cost me costs£175. Should i of been awarded the costs i paid. If it was moved to part 7 on the day i would of been awarded x3. So Im confused why 75 was awarded.
          As I said, the judge was wrong about Part 7/Part 8, unless of course the judge struck out the 3x part of the claim because of the judgment in Gladehurst v Hashemi - is this what happened? If so, this could explain why you were only awarded Part 7 costs.

          If the hearing was after the judgment in Gladehurst v Hashemi on 19th May, and also after tenancy ended, then a 3x claim would have failed regardless of whether you'd used Part 7 or Part 8 procedure.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by MrJohnnyB View Post
            Your quote says...


            (3) Where the claim is an unopposed claim –


            (a) the claimant must use the Part 8 procedure, but the following rules do not apply –


            (i) rule 8.5; and


            (ii) rule 8.6; and


            (b) Omitted


            (c) the court will give directions about the future management of the claim following receipt of the acknowledgment of service.


            (4) Where the claim is an opposed claim the claimant must use the Part 7 procedure.

            (Practice Direction 56 contains provisions about evidence, including expert evidence in opposed claims)


            This is opposed surely?!
            You are quoting from the section entitled: Claims for a new tenancy under section 24 and for the termination under section 29(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - which obviously has no relevance to a s.214 HA2004 claim.

            The relevant bits are:

            Part 56

            56.1

            (1) In this Section of this Part ‘landlord and tenant claim’ means a claim under
            (f) section 214 of the Housing Act 2004


            and

            Practice Direction 56

            2.1
            Subject to paragraph 2.1A, the claimant in a landlord and tenant claim must use the Part 8 procedure as modified by Part 56 and this practice direction.




            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by westminster View Post


              You are quoting from the section entitled: Claims for a new tenancy under section 24 and for the termination under section 29(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - which obviously has no relevance to a s.214 HA2004 claim.

              The relevant bits are:

              Part 56

              56.1

              (1) In this Section of this Part ‘landlord and tenant claim’ means a claim under
              (f) section 214 of the Housing Act 2004


              and

              Practice Direction 56

              2.1
              Subject to paragraph 2.1A, the claimant in a landlord and tenant claim must use the Part 8 procedure as modified by Part 56 and this practice direction.




              Ahh thanks for clarifaction. My skim reading abilities clearly arent up to much!
              [I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]

              Comment


                #8
                He pleaded guilty and said sorry but still contested the claim. Thought it was a simple case. The judge said you can't have the x3 on a part 8 as it is a claim for money which claim for moneys are part 7. I am a tenant until my deposit is repaid hence he would not have to pay my deposit back as i don't live there anymore. Case was last Wednesday.

                Comment


                  #9
                  ok here is the letter from the court i received today, i was not happy about being giveen a cheque and did not settle. i was told take the cheque or lose everything.

                  p.s it says on the footnote about being ordered that it be a part 7??? im so confused, after all this do i fight on or still cash the cheque.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by kevin2011 View Post
                    ok here is the letter from the court i received today, i was not happy about being giveen a cheque and did not settle. i was told take the cheque or lose everything.

                    p.s it says on the footnote about being ordered that it be a part 7??? im so confused, after all this do i fight on or still cash the cheque.
                    I can only repeat what I said in post #2.

                    Originally posted by westminster View Post
                    Cash it.

                    Following the judgment in Gladehurst v Hashemi earlier this year (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/604.html - esp para. 37) the tenant has no claim against LL under s.214 after the tenancy has ended.
                    You have zero chance of winning if you try to pursue a claim for the 3x penalty because the above judgment is binding on lower courts - worst case scenario, you could end up being ordered to pay the LL's costs.

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    • Reply to Housing First - what are your thoughts?
                      by jpucng62
                      Much as I have sympathy for your clients and would like to support your work, I like jpkeates, would be unlikely to accept this kind of tenant. There is just too much risk for a private LL.

                      I did once rent a property to a similar organisation and the problem was not the tenant but her boyfriend...
                      18-09-2020, 14:49 PM
                    • Housing First - what are your thoughts?
                      by LandlordLiaisonOfficer
                      Hello,

                      I work for a homeless charity and I am hoping you don't mind me bending your ear and gaining some landlord insight on a model we are imminently implementing for some of our service users.

                      Traditional housing models within the homeless sector require the service user...
                      18-09-2020, 12:32 PM
                    • Reply to Part furnished
                      by jpucng62
                      Hope you held on to the deposit
                      18-09-2020, 14:45 PM
                    • Part furnished
                      by Chester Perry
                      Our property was let part furnished however upon leaving the Ex. tenant took it upon himself to relieve us of the white goods and wooden blinds.

                      The dishwasher, washing machine, 2 x fridge freezers and wooden blinds throughout were actually ones purchased when the property was our main...
                      18-09-2020, 13:34 PM
                    • Reply to Part furnished
                      by Chester Perry
                      I posted elsewhere on here and feedback was a mix of its not worth it as nothing will happen (plus police will treat as a tenancy issue) and its worth doing to get a crime number.

                      Not going to claim on insurance given excess etc. The fridge freezers value second hand / age considered probably...
                      18-09-2020, 14:22 PM
                    • Reply to Landlord refuses to sign inventory
                      by jpkeates
                      A 15 year old washing machine has almost zero value (and will have less when you move out).
                      The landlord can only legitimately claim for their loss if you bin it.

                      A mid range washing machine is about £350 (and they haven't changed much in price recently), and imagining one would...
                      18-09-2020, 14:14 PM
                    • Landlord refuses to sign inventory
                      by Bumblebee3000
                      We've recently rented a house that from the very start seemed badly taken care of - there were various problems like a mouldy washing machine/curtains, broken curtain rails, etc. When we arrived to meet the inventory clerk, we signed a 2-page document of handwritten inventory notes (we broadly agreed...
                      17-09-2020, 20:13 PM
                    • Reply to Part furnished
                      by theartfullodger
                      Trust you've reported the thefts to police
                      18-09-2020, 14:07 PM
                    • Reply to Landlord refuses to sign inventory
                      by Bumblebee3000
                      This is very helpful, MdeB, thank you. I will try to relax about the inventory now. In regards to the mould - the landlord has a letter from the curtain cleaning company stating that the mould has been "killed" during the cleaning. I actually spoke with the curtain cleaner when he was here...
                      18-09-2020, 14:07 PM
                    • Reply to Deposit Negotitations with Landlord
                      by jpkeates
                      The process seems to have changed recently.
                      The landlord claims from the deposit and that claim should have a summary of what they are claiming and why.
                      You dispute that and then you both have one chance to explain your side of the story.
                      But you do that with only access to what the...
                      18-09-2020, 13:57 PM
                    Working...
                    X