Tricks tenants get up to

clutton_2

i have only today gone back to the beginning of this thread, and seen how many different folks have taken an interest in it - many thanks to all who are following the story and offering their various points of view - even if some are more welcome than others !!

franklee

neas wrote: »

Ok so you say this time, you didnt submit a S21 (weird if its standard protocol ah well). You still do submit them. If you really haven't submitted a S21 then you would have a good case legally.

As the S21 is in clutton's tenancy agreement I asked about if it was served as that would have altered the case. The extracts of what happened to the S21 are quoted below. (Arrow takes you back to the quoted post so you can see the context).

clutton wrote: »

re Section 21 - i dug out the AST today to copy and send off to the DPS - and i forgot to fill in the dates, so - its never been valid ....

clutton wrote: »

i did not complete the section 21 in her AST - there is no claim that i did - section 21 does not get a mention at all in the judgement

clutton wrote: »

yes, i do normally issue Section 21s at the beginning - but in this case i did not - and when i do i always explain its function very clearly.

Neas, I do agree with your points on the Sword of Damocles but it seems that the S21 is not part of the DPS decision in this case as clutton forgot to fill it in. (Leaving part of the tenancy agreement as a form with blank spaces is probably not a good idea as there may be a temptation for someone else to fill it in later on but that hasn't happened in this case).

neas

legally clutton is right.

morally clutton is right in this instance.

I just disagreed with the immoral use of S21s.... .

Does an immoral action warrant an immoral action against that individual... I dont think so..

But karma is a weird thing. Dont use S21s they are bad.

neas

just for instance how much would it cost to take thi to court and lose? Is it 10x deposit ?

Always wondered what would happen in situations like this.

franklee

neas wrote: »

I just disagreed with the immoral use of S21s....

Neas, I agree the S21 should really be used when the landlord does intend the tenant to leave and not served as routine to all tenants even when the tenancy is hoped to be long term as a way of dispensing with a notice period much later on.

All of which raises another question, clutton you mentioned you have a second similar case up soon with another tenant, did you forget to fill her S21 in too?

nai87_2

woo u must be the best LL around, i currently rent off this landlord who lives in manchester and im renting in hull. im a student and my fiancee works full time shifts. he and i share the rent always pay it on time. we even came to an agreement tht we will put carpets down if he reduces rent from 390 to 350 a month.


however we stuck to our deal and he did with his priceing. well weve lived here for 4 months now and the landlord knows theres lots of repairs needed in this place ie new window. damp proofing, repairing the bathroom sink.

4 months..still nothing and WE HAVE NO KITCHEN OR BATHROOM FLOOR!!!

i heard landlords this month get a grand thingy to help ''do up'' their letted homes. i will doubt very much this will happen. and since its been such a bad experiance im now in the process of moving back with parents!!!!

N79

clutton wrote: »

n79 - many thanks - clearly i cannot go into details about my defence case in details on a public forum, but i am interested in your saying

"" Most importantly of all is that a court review of the decision will almost certainly not be in the small claims track.

I shall be applying in the small claims court for DPS to repay my deposit as the amount is small - are you saying that Small Claims will refuse to hear it - in case it sets a precedent ? - if they wont hear it - will they refer it to a higher court ? or will i have to take it to the county court myself ?

First things first: anything I say is merely a personal, "person in the street" opinion. It is not advice.

If you are seeking to have the court review of the decision of the DPS then I do not believe that this will be in the small claims track becuase it is not a dispute about money but about the way in which the DPS has acted. I guess the intention would be to have their actions declared unlawful or negligent (or at the very least irrational) and hence open the door for a compensation payout. This is not the sort of case that the small claims track was set up to hear. Yes the small claims court deals with disputes between LLs and Ts over deposits but if you are asking the court to review a DPS decision then this is not a LL and T dispute.

Unfortunately this almost certainly falls into the same trap for LLs as when county courts adjurn or delay the granting of S8G8 possession orders on spurious grounds (eg related to housing benefit delays). The costs to LLs of righting the obvious illegality of the courts decision is just too damn expensive for most LLs. I fear the same will be the case with the DPS.

(For other forum users who are a little confused by the above, the reason that most precedent setting higher court cases in LL and T law are between social tenants (who get legal aid) and housing associations or relate to commercial tenancies (where the participants have insurance or deep pockets) is because most residential LLs can not afford to enforce their legal rights in the courts in the face of a perverse decision at the bottom of the chain. This is especially true when the T has legal aid (which they will if they have no money) and hence their solicitor can spin out proceedings until the LL runs out of money.)

If you are sueing the DPS for the deposit then this could be heard in the small claims track. However, DPS were not a party to the tenancy agreement and I can not see how you intend to make the DPS liable when they do not hold the deposit but have returned it to the T. The liablility for the payment of rent would appear to me to lie with the T. Of course you may have an argument to submit to the contrary.

I welcome the opinion of others. If the DPS is going to make a habit of judgements such as this then one day it will be me on the receiving end!

clutton_2

many thanks for these new legal perspectives

i am planning to use small claims as in my view i have a legal contract with DPS (as does the tenant) under which i will argue they were legally obliged to return this money to me and they were not only negligent but perverse in their decision making to return it to the tenant

I think they are in breach of that contract - but i am seeking others advice off-forum, so may let you know in due course

keep 'em coming please

clutton_2

i heard a solicitor hoot today - !!!!!! unashamedly hooting !!! he had read my judgment - and wondered how the DPS can claim that the OFT "Guidelines" are law ....... he was also utterly puzzled like myself at the illogicality of the result - he gave me several ways forward......

RabbitMad

Clutton - did you take this any further, or chalk it up to experience never to use the arbitration service again.