New deposit laws

RabbitMad

You could claim via the small claims track and not worry about the 3x deposit penalty. infact if you highlight this to the judge I think it could act in your favour as it looks like you are not vindictive and money grabbing.

chili2001

RabbitMad wrote: »

You could claim via the small claims track and not worry about the 3x deposit penalty. infact if you highlight this to the judge I think it could act in your favour as it looks like you are not vindictive and money grabbing.

You right and it might have to go that way, but the fact is that he HAS broken the law and it should be easier to prosecute him under it. The judge would be able to see the letters we have already sent saying we would be happy with our original deposit back rather than going to court and given him time to respond or rather ignore us. Which he has.
It would also show other dodgy landlords that they cannot get away with this sort of behaviour if we were awarded the full penalty. I think we deserve it now.

mlz1413

I've PM'd you chili

RabbitMad

chili2001 wrote: »

You right and it might have to go that way, but the fact is that he [STRIKE]HAS[/STRIKE] MIGHT HAVE broken the law and it should be easier to prosecute him under it. The judge would be able to see the letters we have already sent saying we would be happy with our original deposit back rather than going to court and given him time to respond or rather ignore us. Which he has.
It would also show other dodgy landlords that they cannot get away with this sort of behaviour if we were awarded the full penalty. I think we deserve it now.

I hope you are aware that there are at least 2 cases where the judge decided that as the deposit had been paid prior to April 2007 the Deposit protection legislation didn't apply, regarless of renewals / rent increases etc.

You sound like you have £ signs in your eyes. I know its very frustrating when landlords unfairly (in your opinion) keep some of the deposit and you want to be compensated for it but look at the bigger picture.

I would go small calims route and allow the judge to decide whether he should award the penalty - add something like the following to your claim "and if my deposit is not returned in full prior to a hearing then an amount at the (should the judge so decide) of upto 3x the initial deposit as per section x of the abc act 20xx"

Mischa

Provided it was a new Tenancy Agreement you signed and it was not simply renwed then the new Tenancy Deposit Scheme rules would apply. However, do be aware that their are two different rules. Take a look at this http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/tenancy-agreements/guide/tenancy-deposit-schemes/ for some background info, this site has helped me out many times! It sounds as though you guys have a good case in theory, and I really hope this all works out for you guys as I really dislike Landlords who think they can get away with everything! Make sure you keep a diary of all communications - dates, times etc and a description of what was siad/what occurred. This could really help you if the case goes further. Good luck!

N79

chili2001 wrote: »

You right and it might have to go that way, but the fact is that he HAS broken the law and it should be easier to prosecute him under it. The judge would be able to see the letters we have already sent saying we would be happy with our original deposit back rather than going to court and given him time to respond or rather ignore us. Which he has.
It would also show other dodgy landlords that they cannot get away with this sort of behaviour if we were awarded the full penalty. I think we deserve it now.

From the facts presented here you have a strong case but I think you need to take a step back in your preparations.

You are right that you need to use N208 for this case as you are asking the courts to award you a sum of money out of proportion to any damages you have suffered and without the right of set off and this is correctly a high bar to cross. You need to take a step back and not make statements such as my LL HAS broken the law as it is only your opinion that he has. As Rabbitmad has indicated some courts have decided that LLs in the same position as your have not done anything wrong. That said, N208 is not a complicated form and the court will be prepared to be relatively lenient to you as a LIP.

You need to prepare the two fundamental parts of your case.

The first is that the deposit should have been protected. Do not assume that the court will automatically agree with this point - you will need to explain to the court why you believe the deposit should have been protected. This is going to require some discussion of the word "paid" and you will need to argue that signing a new contract the deposit was transferred to the new contract and that this constitues paying a deposit. It should but be aware that sometimes courts decide that this does not constitute paying a deposit. (This is another example of poor drafting, I believe that the word held should have been used).

The second point following showing that the deposit should have been protected is to argue that the court should order the deposit returned and make the award. If the LL returns the deposit before the court case then you will need to make an argument that the "also" clause is still applicable and that the payment should be made. Based on cases that I have a knowledge of around 2/3 of courts agree with this arguement while 1/3 disagree and refuse to make the award in these circumstances.

Good luck with your claim.

RabbitMad

thats a really good post N79 - Until a precident setting case is heard it will be down to the local judges to decide. I know a lot of people feel the 3x penalty is unfair and "goes against the grain" to use one judge's words and if chilli goes for this I think it will all come down how the case is presented and the LL's attitude and behaviour.

Chilli before you start your claim just check that the LL is able to pay you if you win. its al very well and good being awarded over £3k but if the LL isn't going to pay it / can't pay it will it be worth it?

chili2001

RabbitMad wrote: »

thats a really good post N79 - Until a precident setting case is heard it will be down to the local judges to decide. I know a lot of people feel the 3x penalty is unfair and "goes against the grain" to use one judge's words and if chilli goes for this I think it will all come down how the case is presented and the LL's attitude and behaviour.

Chilli before you start your claim just check that the LL is able to pay you if you win. its al very well and good being awarded over £3k but if the LL isn't going to pay it / can't pay it will it be worth it?

He is minted. Probally comes from stealing tenants deposits and then ignoring them when they ask for them back.
I didn't particularly like your comment that I had £ signs in my eyes. In fact I thought it was pretty bloody rude considering you know nothing about me or this case. I have given my ex landord many opportunity's to return my original deposit which I would still be happy with. He has ignored me at every request. I am self employed and work outside, the money he owes us would have helped out a great deal when I was unable to work in the bad weather and had to borrow money from family. I've also had time off to visit the CAB office and spent ages looking through forums and speaking to legal experts on housing law.
Their opinion is that he HAS broken the law. The only problem is how a judge would percive it.
This law is meant to protect tenants deposits, all is really seems is a lot of badly drafted rubbish that makes it almost impossible to rule on, not to mention the expense of having to go down the much more expensive "multi track" court route.

chili2001

RabbitMad wrote: »

I would go small calims route and allow the judge to decide whether he should award the penalty - add something like the following to your claim "and if my deposit is not returned in full prior to a hearing then an amount at the (should the judge so decide) of upto 3x the initial deposit as per section x of the abc act 20xx"

Cannot use small claim route for this claim.

If judge decides he has broken law, then the law states he MUST award the 3x deposit.

We would also ask that the court makes an order in accordance with the Housing Act 2004 section 214 (3) which state the following;

(a) "Order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant"

And I understand that the Court Must also do the following;

2) The applicant asks that the court makes an order in accordance with the Housing Act 2004. Section 214 (4) which states the following;

"The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.”

N79

chili2001 wrote: »

Cannot use small claim route for this claim.

If judge decides he has broken law, then the law states he MUST award the 3x deposit.

We would also ask that the court makes an order in accordance with the Housing Act 2004 section 214 (3) which state the following;

(a) "Order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant"

And I understand that the Court Must also do the following;

2) The applicant asks that the court makes an order in accordance with the Housing Act 2004. Section 214 (4) which states the following;

"The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.”

Selectively quoting the law is exactly how you could sink your otherwise strong case. 214 (3) states

The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a)
order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

(b)
order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,


within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

So you should not demand repayment but ask the court to action 214(3). You can, of course, as a seperate argument give reasons why you believe the court should opt for 214(3)a and not 214(3)b but you should be careful that you do not annoy the judge by taking away from the court their right to determine the appropriate outcome. It is important to seperate out the arguement that 214(3) should apply from which section of 214(3) you wish the court to apply.

Secondly, you should never tell the court what it must do but should request that they do something - abrasive language like that does nothing but get the back up of the judge. You should also prepare an argument for a favourable interpretation of "also" if your LL should repay or protect the deposit in advance of your hearing. However, there is no need to include this argument in your outline arguments on the court form.