Help with Court Letter please

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

    #31
    So let the dispute complete first, and accept the deductions the dps state are reasonable.

    Then write a letter about the deposit not being protected at a later date?

    How would that work, because theoretically i would of recieved the deposit (or part of) back wouldn't? So how would i then be able to claim to the courts for another deposit?

    Or am i reading this wrong

    Comment


      #32
      You're not asking for "another deposit". You'd be asking the court to award a penalty for an monetary amount between 1x-3x the deposit in question, against the landlord to you. The fact that the deposit has been repaid less any deductions does not affect that other than that you wouldn't be asking the court to make an order in relation to repayment of the deposit.
      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


        #33
        I'm actually in two minds about this.

        The current aagent did protect the deposit, and has a good defence against the penalty claim.
        The landlord isn't easy to sue (and get a result).

        The claim for deductions seems hard to support.
        If you sue the landlord or agent (or say you're going to) it seems to me that this will (from their point of view) seem unnessecarily provocative, and could easily cause them to be firmer in their conduct with regards to the whole issue.

        Hence my suggestion to do things one at a time.

        If you point out to the agent that a) you don't think that they have any claim and b) if the landlord makes any deductions you'll bring up the whole unprotected deposit issue (which they might be unaware of) it might be a morecivilised way through the issue,
        One ot the problems with a forum like this is that it's easier to outline what you're entited to in answer to a question than deal with the softer aspects of what's the best thing to do.

        Your deposit wasn't protected and you are therefore entitled to do this is correct, but it doesn't mean that's the only think you can do.
        There's more to life than being 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


          #34
          Help with Court Letter please

          Hey guys

          Im after a little help please.

          My deposit wasn't protected on 3 occasions with my previous landlord, therefore i am aware i can ask the court for a penalty for each occasion.

          My question is can any one help me with how to write an initial letter to the ex landlord.

          I have recieved my deposit back minus agreed fees so i'm unsure how to word everything etc.

          Thanks

          Comment


            #35
            Process explained & specimen letter here:

            https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi...nsation_claims

            Comment


              #36
              The reason for protecting deposits was to make sure landlords did not keep your deposit when you left, and that you got it back, minus any deductions.

              This was to protect you from bad / crooked landlords.

              Your landlord is not bad / crooked landlord as you got your deposit back. YOU GOT YOUR DEPOSIT BACK.

              I suggest that members do not help spanner2k16 to fleece a landlord that has already returned a deposit, and that spanner2k16 is just on a money making spree at the expense of a landlord that kept the deposit safe, and returned it ( in accordance with the intentions of the law, to make sure you get your deposit back ).

              40 posts on here, just on a deposit that has already been returned.....

              Comment


                #37
                Three related threads have been merged.

                Originally posted by ram View Post
                I suggest that members do not help spanner2k16 to fleece a landlord that has already returned a deposit, and that spanner2k16 is just on a money making spree at the expense of a landlord that kept the deposit safe, and returned it ( in accordance with the intentions of the law ).
                With the merged threads there's now greater context to review (e.g. posts 1 and 8 - the start of the two previous threads), and I would say your suggestion is too late in this instance.

                The discussion of whether to help of not in such cases has occurred a few times now, unsurprisingly without conclusion as some may choose to help and some may not, and each situation is slightly different making an absolute policy a tad difficult to word in fair and enforceable way.
                I also post as Mars_Mug when not moderating

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by ram View Post
                  I suggest that members do not help spanner2k16 to fleece a landlord that has already returned a deposit, and that spanner2k16 is just on a money making spree at the expense of a landlord that kept the deposit safe, and returned it ( in accordance with the intentions of the law ).
                  The intention of the law, obviously, was that landlords obey the requirement to protect their deposit within an authorised scheme.

                  It was the tenant's money all along, and the landlord had a duty to protect it in a scheme.

                  Why bother having laws if everyone still just goes off and does what they want without regard to them?

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Ah tenants on their high horses, suddenly thinking of themselves as champions of the rule of law... I'm sure they then donate the penalty to charity.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Protecting a deposit is not challenging and the legislation has been in place for nearly a decade.

                      Any landlord who doesn't do their research before letting property and gets caught out is just bad at their job.

                      What more do you want?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by tenant1001894 View Post

                        What more do you want?
                        Well, if people get their deposit back, but want more money for free ! Then time to put the rents up, £ 100 per month for a 6 month contract, and not ask for a deposit.
                        but read post number 36 again.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Well there would be no need to do that if landlords used the schemes properly in the first place, which the vast majority do. So there isn't a problem for you, I'm sure. So the industry as a whole doesn't need to raise rents. What a non-argument.

                          If there wasn't a penalty in place, many landlords would ignore the requirement as it didn't increase their potential liabilities, so there would be no reason to comply. So the legislation would be completely ineffectual.

                          It's a good law because it disincentives attitudes among 'casual' landlords that letting a property is a 'sit-back-and-watch-the-money-roll-in' type of investment.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by tenant1001894 View Post

                            If there wasn't a penalty in place, many landlords would ignore the requirement as it didn't increase their potential liabilities, so there would be no reason to comply. So the legislation would be completely ineffectual.
                            Your comment is correct, and agreed by most on here,
                            But the fact remains, the deposit was kept safe ( somewhere ) the deposit was returned, but ex-tenant wants More money for having his deposit kept safe and returned.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by ram View Post


                              Your comment is correct, and agreed by most on here,
                              But the fact remains, the deposit was kept safe ( somewhere ) the deposit was returned, but ex-tenant wants More money for having his deposit kept safe and returned.
                              Ignorantia juris non excusat generally covers it.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to My tenant lied to me
                                by theartfullodger
                                As a stupid landlord I take grave exception to your slur, Sir!

                                Next week, amazing, unexpected, revelations that from time2time landlords lie to tenants.............. and agents from time2time lie to landlords AND tenants... and MPs & a particular special adviser seem to lie to most...
                                03-06-2020, 16:22 PM
                              • My tenant lied to me
                                by Uklondoner
                                My tenant lied to me saying he missed the first universal credit payment. But actually according to one of my friend the payment normally only take two weeks to come directly to the bank account. What can I do? Can I find a way to let the universal credit directly make overdue rent payment? I really...
                                03-06-2020, 09:54 AM
                              • Reply to Access to sheds
                                by DPT57
                                Possibly, although I was basing my comment on this phrase in the original post:...
                                03-06-2020, 16:21 PM
                              • Access to sheds
                                by endymion
                                Hi. We have been renting a flat for the past decade under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The flat is one of five in a single block. The back garden contains a large outbuilding comprising ten sheds. Implicitly, then, two sheds per flat. The inventory does contain the wording 'Garages, Sheds, Outbuildings:'...
                                03-06-2020, 10:09 AM
                              • Reply to My tenant lied to me
                                by Uklondoner
                                Thanks so much !...
                                03-06-2020, 16:21 PM
                              • Reply to Access to sheds
                                by AndrewDod
                                Then you need to go the route I said. Unless there is a lease which specifically defines the demise of Flat X that includes the shed(s) there is no reason at all to explicitly exclude anything....
                                03-06-2020, 16:17 PM
                              • Reply to My tenant lied to me
                                by nukecad
                                As it's UC then as a landlord you need to submit a form UC47 to apply to the DWP for a 'Managed Payments to Landlord', which can include an amount for arrears.
                                However any repayment of arrears granted will be on a 'pay back at so much a month' basis.

                                UC47's can now be submitted online....
                                03-06-2020, 15:51 PM
                              • Reply to Access to sheds
                                by endymion
                                Well, partly, but mainly I'm considering whether the sheds would have to be explicitly excluded from the tenancy in the AST. It's a question of what would be considered the default position in law....
                                03-06-2020, 14:53 PM
                              • Reply to Access to sheds
                                by endymion
                                Interesting. I'll have to cross that bridge when I come to it. Nonetheless, if the deeds stipulate that the sheds are part of the flat, rather than communal, surely that's quite a different matter....
                                03-06-2020, 14:52 PM
                              • Reply to Access to sheds
                                by MdeB
                                I believe the OP is coming from the position of:
                                • The LL has granted us the right, beyond the tenancy agreement, to use two sheds.
                                • Would the law consider that having granted that use, the LL cannot unilaterally withdraw the use of those sheds?
                                ...
                                03-06-2020, 14:48 PM
                              Working...
                              X