Help Landlord issued Section 21 Notice

never-in-doubt

mate I wouldn't worry about the CCJ route - i've looked into this and very few LL's get it awarded if they have acted inappropriately. She may get it but you'd soon get it taken back off easily enough.

The council/HA's seem to go for CCJ's but the little unknown private landlord can't afford it, it aint a £59 thing after all..... LOL

silvercar

Make clear (if you haven't already done) to the estate agent that
(a) your landlord doesn't know what she is doing,
(b) that you intend staying for the full term,
(c) that you won't be conducting viewings so far from the end of the tenancy
(d) that you will consider the EA to have broken in to the property should they let themselves in to the property.

Everyone is allowed to start somewhere, but clearly this LL hasn't got a clue and won't learn.

tbs624

never-in-doubt - the OP may want to balance the potential validity of your "research" conclusions against the fact your previous post was full of cobblers:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yea but not many smaller landlords get done for not using the scheme - she hasn't broken the law as such, she may be able to prove that she has deposited it correctly. This is a different argument and still, all he'll win is his original deposit back.

s.21 has no provision regards to mandatory TDS... can you clarify with links proving such?

Innocent_Guy

Just had another email from LL I'll quote

I just copied and pasted the above! See the way the LL is acting!

tbs624

Innocent_Guy - Don't respond until you have spoken to the private sector rentals bod at the Council - her tone is clearly verging on "threat" - you may want to remove the actual quote from her email from your post though You may also want to try Shelter 0808 800 444.(7 days 8-8)

Innocent_Guy

tbs624 wrote: »

Innocent_Guy - Don't respond until you have spoken to the private sector rentals bod at the Council - her tone is clearly verging on "threat" - you may want to remove the actual quote from her email from your post though You may also want to try Shelter 0808 800 444.(7 days 8-8)

Removed, I have already replied! I may call shelter

MercilessKiller

Sorry for a mini hijack.

On page 2 someone mentioned that the LL must tell the tennant (formally) which scheme the deposit is part of and if they don't, the tennant can get the money back?

In my current place (moving out very soon), the landlord is threatening to use my deposit to pay for cleaners due to a mess another tennant has made while I've been away. He took the £280 cash deposit at the start of the year (student property) but has not given us any information as to where it is...

So is there a chance he has to repay me the full amount, and I could just find a cheaper cleaner to avoid losing it all or something!

Thanks

tbs624

MK - you do apologise for the "mini-hijack" but it probably would be best to start a new thread It's likely that IG will have a few more posts on this one and things get confusing for everyone to follow if people add a separate query. You may also want to do a brief search of this Board for tenancy deposit disputes?

never-in-doubt

tbs624 wrote: »

never-in-doubt - the OP may want to balance the potential validity of your "research" conclusions against the fact your previous post was full of cobblers:

By the way maybe you miss the point I am mates with the OP and wouldn't deliberately give him wrong info - I asked for clarity and got it - thanks for that - great help as it happens!

Thanks! I stated that she may have deposited it correctly, if she has done so prior to issuance of s.21 then the s.21 'could' stand (excluding the other errors which were not known at the time of post').

Considering the cost involved in issuing a CCJ it is most unlikely that a LL will attempt to do such, except in extreme circumstances or larger amounts - certainly not for a grand when she knows he'll counterclaim to set-aside the judgement due to no defence and incorrect judgement (due to incorrectly served s.21) also it is easily removed if anything was done incorrectly which directly resulted in the CCJ, in this instance the unlawful s.21 she issued.

Bottom line is OP can withold the deposit funds and if any CCJ was attempted then he'd know about it and could sort it prior to it occuring and get it removed at a later date, once the fighting has stopped!

To substantiate:

The county court rules set out when a defendant can apply to set aside a judgment (i.e. CCJ). For example:

• an order was made against them in their absence in certain circumstances;

• there was an error in the judgment;

• the defendant wants to put in a defence and did not have the opportunity to do this;
• the proceedings did not follow the court rules.

---

Regards to changing the lock/refusal of entry: If your LL is clued up she'd say she wanted to check the property for repairs; interesting......

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11(6)
Every letting of residential premises for less than seven years [unless first granted before 24 October 1961, or covered by exclusion order under s.12(1), or excepted by s.13(3) or s.14] contains an implied term that LL may, at a reasonable time of day and 24hrs notice, enter the premises to view their condition and state of repair.

Housing Act 1988 s.16
Every AST/SAT contains an implied term that Tenant must give LL access to the premises and all reasonable facilities for carrying-out repairs which LL is entitled to carry-out- /B]NB: does not say 'obliged' to carry-out[B

LL can enforce these rights against Tenant, by litigation if necessary.

---

Innocent_Guy wrote:

.............

Mate have a read here: I'd be looking to take the LL to court for non compliance of TDS - http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=112878

tbs624

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Considering the cost involved in issuing a CCJ it is most unlikely that a LL will attempt to do such, except in extreme circumstances or larger amounts - certainly not for a grand when she knows he'll counterclaim to set-aside the judgement due to no defence and incorrect judgement (due to incorrectly served s.21) also it is easily removed if anything was done incorrectly which directly resulted in the CCJ, in this instance the unlawful s.21 she issued.

I think you are perhaps overestimating the costs, and under-estimating the motivation, for a LL to pursue a CCJ for non-payment of rent. On the S21 notice, look back at the whole of my paragraph:

tbs624 wrote: »

....Your thoughts on not paying rent are understandable but if your LL got wise & took professional advice, she *may* register your deposit at the last minute & you would leave yourself open to an action for unpaid rent, plus the costs of any justifiable delapidations costs, and a potential CCJ.

So, possibly LL registers deposit, serves valid S21 ( both under qualified guidance), T meanwhile has withheld rent and leaves property, poss with dilapidations………..

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Bottom line is OP can withold the deposit funds and if any CCJ was attempted then he'd know about it and could sort it prior to it occuring and get it removed at a later date, once the fighting has stopped!

My view is that if the other party is behaving appallingly the worst thing you can do (both for your own sanity and for clarity in any subsequent court proceedings) is to muddy the waters by acting like a prat yourself.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The county court rules set out when a defendant can apply to set aside a judgment (i.e. CCJ). For example:

• an order was made against them in their absence in certain circumstances;
• there was an error in the judgment;
• the defendant wants to put in a defence and did not have the opportunity to do this;
• the proceedings did not follow the court rules.

Okay, one and three there don't simply mean T gets to say "oops I missed it please set judgement aside", proving an error in the judgement is not always straightforward and four is a technicality issue that you can't rely on until after the event, so effectively you run with risk of a CCJ on your record in the hope that the court proceedings are incorrect ?

---

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Regards to changing the lock/refusal of entry: If your LL is clued up she'd say she wanted to check the property for repairs; interesting....……….LL can enforce these rights against Tenant, by litigation if necessary.

Much of your "knowledge" seems to come from trawling other forums and quoting wholesale from them. ASTs don't "contain an implied term" a covenant is implied under Statute. Yes, S11(6) refers to an implied covenant that the LL can access the property to fulfil repairing obligations etc(you should also have highlighted that the min. 24 hrs notice has to be given *in writing*) but this categorically does not include viewings by potential purchasers, and neither do the provisions of the 1988 Act. A LL can’t give notice of inspection, turn up and say “here to do an inspection and whilst we’re here Mrs and Mrs House-purchaser are having a quick gander…..”

The LL's right of access *has* to be balanced against a Ts right to quiet enjoyment and in a case such as IG's, where there is email evidence of the LL effectively threatening the T with eviction within a Fixed Term, it would be a rare judge who awarded a court order even for repairs access to that LL, let alone for general viewings. Have a look at the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Changing the lock barrels is recommended where the LL is behaving in this fashion - check with Shelter, your local plod, tenancy relations officers etc :the fact that you change the lock barrel does not mean that you have prevented access per se, just that any such access cannot be achieved without your agreement.

The T does have to bear in mind that s/he cannot expect to get any complaint about repairs issues upheld if denying the LL access and would have to pay for repairs if there is damage to doors etc for any emergency access that could otherwise have been effected by a keyholder. However, any Ts who have a “difficult” LL who is likely to enter without Ts’ consent would perhaps think it was worth running the risk of the possibility of either of those.