Deposit Protection: Court case won against Landlord

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

    #46
    Originally posted by josh123 View Post
    Whilst I agree your LL was negligent in respect of the deposit and did not defend the case in court, please can you explain to us ALL the reason you went to such lengths.?

    Was it for personal financial loss during tenancy term or for pure financial gain by this law as you appear rather proud of your financial success in this matter.?
    Financial gain, and yes proud to have taken a dodgy company to court and have made them pay for their consequence of being a crummy LL.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
      A cautionary tale would be to just tell that an award was made. He posted an howto guide.

      Anyway I'm out. It seems I belong with all the long gone contributors to this forum...
      Well, I for one hope you do not abandon the forum - I have always appreciated your thoughtful, knowledgeable contributions.

      FWIW I am inclined to agree with you about the unhelpful tenor of this thread, mainly because of the ethics of the thing. The law is pretty much an ass when it comes to deposit protection - it swings from one extreme of nonsense to another and back again with more inane drafting in between than you can shake a stick at. It should simply state that the deposit must be protected and the PI supplied within 15 days of receipt. Fine for LL should be £20 per week for each unprotected week/part of week, and/or a further £20 for each week PI remains unsupplied. It should be sufficient to supply PI by email and T should acknowledge receipt. End of.

      Although this is not the case legally, all that matters from a practical or ethical standpoint is that the deposit is protected and the PI supplied by the end of the tenancy, is it not? So people throwing themselves about gleefully because the letter of a barking mad law has not been complied with, fail to excite my sympathies.

      Given that the law is ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated I can see why someone who has successfully used it to wring some money out of their LL might feel smug, but I'm not sure how useful that smugness is. Nor do I feel much sympathy for the large corporate LL in this case. But it's probably not a great lesson in life either for OP or any other T who sees it as a quick route to riches.

      Obviously everyone should obey the law, but breaches of the law which have no discernible impact on anyone (this LL protected the deposit in the end before the tenancy ended) should surely not be viewed as seriously as breaches, for example, of motoring law where someone could easily lose their life (even if luckily, the speeding motorist happens not to hit anyone that time).
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #48
        There are useful lessons in the OPs account - don't fail to defend yourself being number one.
        If a court is going to make the three times deposit penalty by default, which is also interesting to note, best to try and explain yourself.

        While the legislation isn't great (although compared to repossession it's almost elegant) it's been there for 12 years or so.
        It's been tweaked a couple of times, so it doesn't look like its going away anytime soon.
        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


          #49
          Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
          Well, I for one hope you do not abandon the forum - I have always appreciated your thoughtful, knowledgeable contributions.
          I second that - and if it were allowed I'd third it!

          Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
          FWIW I am inclined to agree with you about the unhelpful tenor of this thread, mainly because of the ethics of the thing. The law is pretty much an ass when it comes to deposit protection - it swings from one extreme of nonsense to another and back again with more inane drafting in between than you can shake a stick at. It should simply state that the deposit must be protected and the PI supplied within 15 days of receipt. Fine for LL should be £20 per week for each unprotected week/part of week, and/or a further £20 for each week PI remains unsupplied. It should be sufficient to supply PI by email and T should acknowledge receipt. End of.

          Although this is not the case legally, all that matters from a practical or ethical standpoint is that the deposit is protected and the PI supplied by the end of the tenancy, is it not? So people throwing themselves about gleefully because the letter of a barking mad law has not been complied with, fail to excite my sympathies.

          Given that the law is ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated I can see why someone who has successfully used it to wring some money out of their LL might feel smug, but I'm not sure how useful that smugness is. Nor do I feel much sympathy for the large corporate LL in this case. But it's probably not a great lesson in life either for OP or any other T who sees it as a quick route to riches.

          Obviously everyone should obey the law, but breaches of the law which have no discernible impact on anyone (this LL protected the deposit in the end before the tenancy ended) should surely not be viewed as seriously as breaches, for example, of motoring law where someone could easily lose their life (even if luckily, the speeding motorist happens not to hit anyone that time).
          As to the ethics, I think we should bear in mind that there is a political consensus that deposits should be protected and that a financial incentive is a good way to ensure compliance. Failure to comply could have been made a criminal offence, but instead enforcement was left to the tenant. I am inclined to think that that was the preferable option as we want to keep criminality out of landlord and tenant business as much as we can. It has in any event stopped cries of: "Now they are making honest folk criminals!" Since Parliament has afforded tenants the opportunity to claim for failure to comply with a statutory duty I am having a little difficulty in regarding anyone who takes up the option to be regarded as acting unethically. Even if the legislation was, at least at first, opaque its intention was crystal clear. There is no question here of a tenant twisting the law to his benefit. Everything is in the hands of the landlord. If he complies he is in the clear.

          Whilst observing that the average landlord probably takes more trouble to familiarise himself with tax law than landlord and tenant law, one can have some sympathy with a landlord ignorant of the law or who relies on an agent to sort everything out. The deposit requirements are not after all something it is obvious one should comply with. However, as pointed out, the law can hardly excuse a landlord on the grounds that he professes not to know the law. A compromise where the deposit has not been protected would be for a tenant to have the right to serve notice on a landlord requiring the landlord either to protect the deposit or return it, failing which the "penalty" becomes payable and the deposit returnable. The form of notice would set out the consequences of a failure to comply. No landlord who failed to comply with the notice could complain he did not know the consequences of a failure to comply. A further refinement would be where an agent is involved to impose the obligation to protect on the agent and make the "penalty" three times the amount of the deposit simply for failure to protect within the time limit.

          Comment


            #50
            I actually think that it should be easier for a Tenant or ex-Tenant to claim against a Landlord who's not protected a deposit. I think a lot of people are put off, and a lot of Landlords are [possibly falsely] reassured, by the fact that it can seem quite hard to go about this. If it's an open-and-shut case then it should be made simple to, hopefully, avoid clogging up the legal system... and another consequence of this, I feel, would be that it could curb the no-win-no-fee firms a bit.

            I liken a Landlord not protecting the deposit to them being immediately guilty of attempted theft. Many would claim ignorance, that's for sure, but we all know that ignorance is not an excuse, so why many people claim that surprises me. I think I've said this before but for this legislation even to have come in (and I've always known it to be in place, as I wasn't doing this way back when) then deposit stealing must've been a MUH-ASSIVE problem... a "perk of the job" for many Landlords.

            What I find interesting about the OP's thread here, is twofold... one is how easy it was and two is how unnecessarily hard it was!

            Comment


              #51
              Is it sensible to file papers for this when you still live in the property (albeit for another month)?

              Comment


                #52
                So no personal financial loss, purely utilised this law for personal financial gain as both I and others suspected.!
                I wish your next LL good luck and sincerely hope he obtains references for your next tenancy agreement
                I could add more, but I wish to remain a member of this forum.!

                Comment


                  #53
                  josh123,

                  Your anger is strange. No tenant suffers financial loss when claiming 3 X deposit. Certainly not 3x. It's a stupid tax to tax stupid people/landlords. The law has been around since 2007.

                  I can imagine the reference "THIS TENANT TOOK US TO COURT AND GOT 3X DEPOSIT AS WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE LAW AND PROTECT IT, KEEP ON NOT PROTECTING YOUR DEPOSITS AND DO NOT RENT TO THIS PERSON"

                  If I had to rent, I'd be quite delighted when day 31 arrived and everything wasn't in order. In the land of the blind...............

                  For every successful claim by a tenant I bet there are at least 50 tenants who are as ignorant as the LL's and have been ripped off at the end of a tenancy.
                  "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

                  What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    I, too, am bemused by the negative reaction, evidently only 1 party did anything wrong and it wasn't the Tenant who ended up making a successful claim.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Wannadonnadoodah,

                      Anger agreed, but just venting feelings. I got caught(negligence) a few years ago by this law, but T's in question utilised every possible means to in order to make outrageous claims within the deposit claim. Despite refunding the deposit, T's left this property in a mess. Also told pack of lies to the court, which I proved, fortunately this case was settled in adjudication
                      Still very bitter as these two parasites are still today are milking every penny from society they can.!

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Too right negligence. I haven't read the OP's full story but it's a black and white matter. From your experience I bet you'll never have to pay stupid tax again? If you had protected the deposit you wouldn't have had to give it back, the tenants mess could have been paid for and you wouldn't have been sued.
                        "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

                        What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Hippogriff View Post
                          I, too, am bemused by the negative reaction, evidently only 1 party did anything wrong and it wasn't the Tenant who ended up making a successful claim.
                          Agreed, LL totally irresponsible!

                          But OP has confirmed the GOAL from this law was for financial gain and T is obviously very proud of the achievement.?

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Free money, not a bad goal to aim for.
                            "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

                            What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by Wannadonnadoodah View Post
                              Free money, not a bad goal to aim for.
                              Great idea free cash, female T's of this nature also bounce between married and maiden names, male T's change there appearance(shave beard, wear glasses etc) and create new social media accounts

                              But just my thoughts

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Those are issues relating to tenants, not tenants who claim penalties.

                                You had a tenant who caused damage and lied in court.
                                I'd be really hacked off too.

                                They also took advantage of your failing to protect the deposit.
                                Possibly one thing you can't really blame them for.
                                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

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X