Please help re flat deposit

jazmad

Hi EL

Just a quick post to wish you good luck. One thought I do have reading the thread. Clearly this has dragged on and caused a lot of hassle, but the main argument still relates to the deductions from your deposit (all the aggro re: addresses etc. has come later). I'd have thought the magistrates would be more concerned with this aspect as this is the underlying point rather than the fact the landlady has messed you around with addresses and not accepted letters. Therefore, whilst events of the last year may come up, preparing your case for the original claim should be your focus.

All the best for Thursday!!

kent_lady

Hi there EL, haven't posted for a while but have been reading and keeping up to date with things here ....just wanted to say GOOD LUCK for Thursday, there will be 100s (1000s?) of MSE-ers crossing everything for you!

Please update us as soon as you can......!!!!!

Go for it. :T

xxx

EagerLearner

Thanks Bob, will find the original tenancy agreement and sift through to find anything relating to address or 'notification clause' and take with. Although I do recall the judge in the last appearance against the landlord agreeing with her when she pointed out a paragraph which said a certain type of correspondence was to the letting agent address hidden in small print somewhere, she glossed over the fact that we had copied them in at that address on most things, as seemingly did the judge. Therefore, if all we find is a reference to the letting agent address rather than hers, do we take that with us?

clutton_2

Come on guys and gals - lets put "evil" thinking caps on here - what nastiness could Evil LL say ?? EL needs at least to have heard it before - so that she can get over the "shock" factor now, and come up with a possible response in court.

There is nothing worse than hearing stuff for the first time in court and having to respond on the hoof under huge pressure.

gird your loins EL = gird 'em good !!!!!

Gold_Shogun

EagerLearner wrote: »

Thanks Bob, will find the original tenancy agreement and sift through to find anything relating to address or 'notification clause' and take with. Although I do recall the judge in the last appearance against the landlord agreeing with her when she pointed out a paragraph which said a certain type of correspondence was to the letting agent address hidden in small print somewhere, she glossed over the fact that we had copied them in at that address on most things, as seemingly did the judge. Therefore, if all we find is a reference to the letting agent address rather than hers, do we take that with us?

Aah! ... That would potentially be a totally different (& previously unmentioned) kettle of fish.

IF the Agreement/Clause specifically refers to the Letting Agent ONLY (as opposed to the Landlord and/or LA), then I would suggest you NOT draw attention to it ---> As, IF I were your "Evil Landlord", I would probably use that against you in Court (Nothing Personal, but you DID ask for potential "Evil-LL Loopholes").

However, IF the clause is "either/or" LA/LL, OR the previous Court "specified" the address to which your should send your documents, then I would still strongly suggest my original proposals.

Either way, I would still suggest that you at least take a copy of the Original Agreement WITH YOU (JUST IN CASE a "Court Query" arises over this {OR any other} clause) ---> Like a good Scout, always be as prepared as you can.

Regards
Bob

olly300

OK I reread parts of the thread to check things and have put my evil cap on.

As far as I understand it:
1. the LL is trying to set aside a default judgement against her by claiming she didn't receive the original court papers.
2. if she succeeds with 1, she will then try and stop the court hearing the case.
3. all your recorded/special delivery letters addressed to her where returned to you
4. other letters addressed to her at her various addresses where returned to you with her not known at the address.

She will produce some mitigating evidence that shows she either did not get the original court papers and some of your letters, or either could not deal with them.

This means she will use an excuse such as:
1. Postal strike in that particular area - shown by letters from Royal Mail to their customers apologising. These letters have the exact dates on them.
2. Not receiving her post and claiming someone else is - correspondence between Royal Mail and herself, with finally a letter of apology from Royal Mail
3. Claiming she was sick - with doctor's notes indicating she was suffering from a illness that means she could not deal with her affairs AND/OR was in hospital.
4. Not being in the country from the time the correspondence was sent to her until the case- with evidence such as tickets
5. Death/ Illness in the family meaning she couldn't be in the area- again she will produce tickets, doctors notes etc.
6. Claims of disagreements between herself and some of the people who addresses she uses - evidence would be a letter written by one of the individual's stating that she couldn't use their address anymore. Depending what she was sick with this actually could be believed however the letter would be undated.

She will then do as clutton suggested and state that you are unreasonable etc and if she is claiming she is ill, she will state that your refusal to reach a settlement with her is making her worse.

If you judgement stands EL you will have the problem of having to enforce payment. There was an article in Saturday's guardian about trouble with collecting debts http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumernews/story/0,,2088192,00.html

However the only good thing is that as she is bothering to dispute the judgement then you have got the right address for her and she is trying to ensure she doen't have a CCJ on her credit records.

prudryden

The default judgement was already dismissed. Olly, you need to catch up.

liz545

Evil things the LL could claim in court? I'd be surprised if she did claim that the rent is late, as this is a fairly easy thing to disprove. However, it's entirely likely that she might say that EL was a negligent, dirty tenant, and subsequent to the end of the tenancy, has been harassing her which has made/worsened her illness. I'd also expect her to claim that EL consented to the deductions, or agreed that deductions should be made; and that her attempts at compromise and negotiation were met with resistance. I'd imagine she would have a sob story about being unwell, under immense pressure, and virtually homeless (given all the moving around) which meant that she hasn't received EL's letters; that she's not had much money to spare, and also that she'll lay as much blame as possible on the LA. In essence, I would imagine that she'll try and portray herself as a sick, harassed woman who is being relentlessly hassled by bad tenants who don't deserve their money back, and have given her neither time nor the benefit of the doubt. Does this help?

olly300

prudryden wrote: »

The default judgement was already dismissed. Olly, you need to catch up.

Oops my mistake.

Still the LL will have to make up a sob story and provide evidence to try and make the sob story stick and make EL seem an unreasonable person.

prudryden

I have a feeling the decision will be limited strickly to the facts this time.
(1) Initial condition report. (both signatures)
(2) Final condition report. (both signatures and was EL invited to attend the session.)
(3) Receipts for purported work.
(4) Receipts from EL on her efforts.
(5) Are the deductions reasonable (which I doubt)?
(6) Judges decision on what is "normal wear and tear" - I expect most.