TDS Case Lost !!! - Going to Appeal

tbs624

Premier wrote: »

My advice, and I know many won't will agree with me here.

Exactly.

Premier wrote: »

Speak to your LL first if you have any issues - don't go and get everyone & their dog wound up against the LL. A quiet word will see most reasonable LLs acting quickly to correct any oversight. LLs are human like everyone else - and yes they like everyone else make the odd mistake now and again. But LLs, even the reasonable ones, are only reasonable when they are being treated reasonably by their tenants.
.

It is not reasonable for a LL who is renting properties as a business to fail in his/her legal obligations to his/her tenants. I do wish that you would stop offering these poor excuses for the behaviour of incompetent, unprofessional LLs and LAs: the very ones who would be the first to draw a tenant's attention to any of their shortcomings under the law and/or the contract terms.

I seem to think we've done this one before Premier.....

I just don't buy the "poor little LL, give him a chance, he's only human, he's made a mistake" line - the majority of errant LLs/LAs know exactly what they are supposed to do and simply choose not to do it, or to do it within their own timescale.

Their behaviour is an insult to the tenants whose money they gladly take every month, to the good name of decent LLs, and it's a clear two fingers in the air to the law.

Do you personally only comply with LL & T laws/regs when you are caught out?

Premier_2

Prancer wrote: »

...The two judges who concluded that the sanctions of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme still apply despite retrospective compliance were District Judge Singleton, Claim No. 8GL00457 Stankova v Glassonbury on 10th March 2008 at Gloucester Crown & County Court ...

Sounds like the LL got what he deserved!

On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment.

http://www.lettingtrainingcentre.co.uk/news.html

However

In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant.

Premier_2

tbs624 wrote: »

Exactly.


It is not reasonable for a LL who is renting properties as a business to fail in his/her legal obligations to his/her tenants. I do wish that you would stop offering these poor excuses for the behaviour of incompetent, unprofessional LLs and LAs: the very ones who would be the first to draw a tenant's attention to any of their shortcomings under the law and/or the contract terms.

I seem to think we've done this one before Premier.....

I just don't buy the poor little LL, give him a chance, he's only human, he's made a mistake - the majority of errant LLs/LAs know exactly what they are supposed to do and simply choose not to do it, or to do it within their own timescale.

Their behaviour is an insult to the tenants whose money they gladly take every month, to the good name of decent LLs, and it's a clear two fingers in the air to the law.

I knew it wouldn't be liked by some...and wasn't surprised by the first person to object!

Not everyone is perfect like you, tbs624 :rolleyes:

Let's hope you never exceed a speed limit or fail to ensure the wheels stop rotating at a stop line.

The LL hasn't failed in his obligations - as the Judge today decided and the EHO decided. Perhaps the LL did make a mistake, but no one was exposed to any cost or other damages and the LL obviously rectified the matter as soon as it was brought to his attention.

Prancer

Premier wrote: »

Sounds like we have a professional complainer here! :cool:

You took a LL to court about a non-protected deposit even though it was protected when asked.

And you involved local authority about a CP12 not being issued by a certain date, even though you had a valid one at the time.

My advice, and I know many won't will agree with me here. Speak to your LL first if you have any issues - don't go and get everyone & their dog wound up against the LL. A quiet word will see most reasonable LLs acting quickly to correct any oversight. LLs are human like everyone else - and yes they like everyone else make the odd mistake now and again. But LLs, even the reasonable ones, are only reasonable when they are being treated reasonably by their tenants.

However, with your attitude, it's no wonder you're being evicted - and expect trouble finding a new place too as I doubt you'll be getting any reference off your current LL.

I think you should make sure you know all the facts before you make such judgemental comments. We didnt just take the LL to court because he hadn't protected the deposit, there was a lot more to it than that.

So you think a LL who puts his tenants at risk by not having a gas cert and doing dodgy electrical work just needs a quiet word in his ear???

I am not a professional complainer, I am a victim in this situation, one who now has to find a new home.

If you can't post helpful advice on here, then please don't bother. People on here are looking for help and advice not arguments, which from your other posts I've seen seems to be your speciality!

Premier_2

Prancer wrote: »

I think you should make sure you know all the facts before you make such judgemental comments. We didnt just take the LL to court because he hadn't protected the deposit, there was a lot more to it than that.

But that was the basis of your claim as described here and the basis of why you lost today!
(I can only go by the information you post - perhaps that's why you lost today? A Judge can only base his decision on what you tell him)

Prancer wrote:

So you think a LL who puts his tenants at risk by not having a gas cert and doing dodgy electrical work just needs a quiet word in his ear???

Yes - why not have that quiet word in his ear before the CP12 expires if you were so worried about it, else 24hours won't cause much of an increased risk. It's all about being reasonable rather than claiming your the 'victim' in all this and 'knowing your rights' - they didn't get you very far today did they? And they didn't get you very far with the EHO previously.

Prancer wrote:

I am not a professional complainer, I am a victim in this situation, one who now has to find a new home.

If you can't post helpful advice on here, then please don't bother. People on here are looking for help and advice not arguments, which from your other posts I've seen seems to be your speciality!

If you don't think first bringing any issues to the attention of the person who is best able to resolve them (e.g the LA/LL) is not good advice, I suggest you put me on your ignore list because that's the type of advice I have and will continue to post.

But then you know that and you still signed up to this forum, only made your first post today, and are telling me not to post comments you don't agree with...all sounds very familiar.:rolleyes:

tbs624

Quote from|Premier's post on the Stankova v Glassonbury case with Premier's highlighting :

"In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant."

AFIAA, this comment was in reference to the fact that it was a strict liability claim, and the landlord's counterclaim for rent arrears and property damage issues could not be set against it, rather than the idea of any tenants receiving such an award per se being contrary to what the judge may have believed was right...

prudryden

tbs624 wrote: »

LLs have to be able to produce Gas Safety Certificates going back for the last 2 years' rentals at the property.....I'd be passing that bit onto the local Tenancy Relations Officer & Environmental Health Officer, plus the Health & Safety Exec who are responsible for enforcing gas safety regs....... (LLs who fail to comply with gas regs face a court appearance a fines of several K.)

Where do I find that information about two years? Not doubting your info, but just haven't heard about it before. It would never be a problem because the Corgi guy has to keep copies anyway, but like to know for my own records. I must admit, I throw the old one away when I get a new one.

tbs624

Pru - it's here:

"You have duties under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to arrange maintenance by a CORGI-registered installer for all pipe work, appliances and flues, which you own and have provided for your tenants use. You must also arrange for an annual gas safety check to be carried out every 12 months by a CORGI-registered installer. You must keep a record of the safety check for 2 years and issue a copy to each existing tenant within 28 days of the check being completed and issue a copy to any new tenants before they move in." (My highlighting)

Source:http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/faqlandlord.htm

Certainly the certs from British Gas et al also have it highlighted somewhere on the certificate itself. No doubt there will be heated discussions from some quarters on the exact interpretation of that wording, but my understanding is that it means the gas safety cert itself.

Clutton, Bungarm, Barnaby Bear - your views?

prudryden

Thanks tbs - I will be phoning my Corgi bloke tomorrow for last year's copies.

RecoveringAlcoholic

the majority of errant LLs/LAs know exactly what they are supposed to do and simply choose not to do it, or to do it within their own timescale.

Are you suggesting that LA's have more than one brain cell?