Please help re flat deposit

EagerLearner

Hi Jennynoo - PM me some info and remind me what the form is askng for and I will help as best I can - can't remember the form myself - brain is like a sieve!

EagerLearner

Hi Wolvesinwales - welcome to the thread!
Yes it has been quite the experience - in the last 6 months with the court case and starting the business, the powers of the universe have taught me 2 major lessons - stand up for what you believe in (and pick your battles wisely) and don't fear the unexpected as it can be exciting once you get past the fear!
Yes I think my thumbnail is a bulldog puppy - I couldn't resist the pic, wish we had a pup but we don't, so he's virtual for now ;o(((

opalfruits_2

Hi EL, another lurker here!

I'm so pleased you've won your case. As a random aside, my husband works for Dawn Advice!

harryhound

Hi Eagerlearner,

By going to court, you got law; but did you get justice?

I wonder if the judges in these little cases always try to give something to both sides?

Your result reminds me of a former colleague’s car insurance claim:

Early retired bloke gets a part time job. It involves, collecting an escort and then taking kids with learning problems to appropriate schools in his car. Let me say he is a “Steady- Eddie” type of driver – probably one of the few in the country that has not been filmed by “Mr Gatso”.

This is the accident site: A country road, with a 40 MPH speed limit, is two cars wide. It has an overgrown hedge on its down hill side and a grass slope on the other side. Here and there a driveway leading to an isolated home, has been built into the slope.

Along comes the two of them one morning; S-E turns left into the drive-way to collect the handicapped child. On the way out S-E has to cross the road as he turns right along side the hedge.

Here comes S-E, his wheels in the gutter and the rear end of the car poking up in the air, as the drive is at an angle of (say) 25 degrees. He looks both ways, but to the left, about 100 yards away, the road bends to the right and the overgrown hedge get in the way.

S-E pulls out, turning right perhaps more gingerly than normal, as the angle of the drive risks him “bottoming” the car, if he does a racing start.

Meanwhile two drivers, who know each other, in “boy racer” cars, come round the corner. There is the rear end of S-E gently accelerating; he is totally oblivious to the mayhem behind him.

The first of the two young men, when presented with the back end of a slow moving saloon, skids. He goes straight up the bank, across the garden and writes off three cars; two new ones next to the house and his own.

The two insurance companies got this into court 18 months later. I hasten to add I was not in court and only have S-E’s accounts as the case developed. I suspect that S-E did not make a glib witness, when chewed up by a barrister.

The judge found S-E 25% responsible for the accident, that he did not even know had happened until a week later !

Perhaps he should be thankful that he was not changing a tyre at the time.

So what has this got to do with tenants’ deposits?

I am convinced that the deposit scheme will protect against the landlord doing a runner with 100 percent of the deposit BUT will tenants find the stressful process of moving home any more certain and swift? I doubt it. In fact with a tenant and a landlord, there are only two possibilities: we agree or we see each other in court. Add a “professional” agent and the process must be longer and the agent has to earn his fees. Now add an insurance policy and all 4 parties can flaff about for 18 months, as above.
I don’t like this concept of “insurance” because “he who pays the piper calls the tune“;
I would prefer to see the tenants real money held by a genuinely independent deposit holder. Methinks the big chains of agents got at the Government.

I would like to see more of a true judgement of Solomon or, if you prefer pendulum arbitration, in the favour of the better case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_arbitration

Gorgeous George over on the new Countrywide Deposits thread suggests that both new and old tenant should be present at a combined leaving and arriving inspection. But I can see the landlord (or his agent) needing to be present. If all three could sign there and then, that would be ideal BUT I fear this would be impossible in the majority of cases.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=5530908&highlight=%27puttimg+things+right%27#post5530908

What we need is something to get people to behave reasonably and swiftly, so life can move on. So here is my suggestion:
Tenant and landlord (or agent) must both be present at the inspection, at the hand over of the keys. If both parties fill in a release form there and then, 100% of the deposit is released in the agreed proportions (80/20 whatever).
If they cannot agree, then either party can file a notice of disagreement and the deposit firm takes 15 percent for its administration costs. Both parties then have one calendar month to file an argued case for the proportion of the 85% still available. They then have 14 days in which to agree to compromise or attend a hearing before the end of the second month. The costs of the hearing would be proportional to the settlement awarded.

If either party failed to meet the deadline of one month to state their case or failed to attend the initial hearing, they would be responsible for the 15% charge BUT a second hearing date could be fixed at the end of month three. If the two parties reached agreement during the month, the 85% would be paid out BUT the party that failed to state their case or to appear would pay the costs from their share. If the second hearing date arrives without agreement then pendulum arbitration rules click in. If only the original party turns up again it gets the whole deposit less 5% for administrative costs. If both parties turn up, only 66% of the deposit is still available and pendulum arbitration applies and “unreasonable behaviour” can be admitted to the case.

With a bit of luck people would concentrate their minds at the inspection when faced by the prospect of wasting between 5 percent and 33 percent of the deposit, even if they win. Not to mention wasting 3 months in the meantime and having to pay their own costs.
This is fairly crude justice but it would be paid for out of the deposit or insurance policy thus putting a poor tenant on a level with a wealthy chain of agents.

Harry.

PS is Dawn Advice a charity supporting poor people from Northumberland ?

opalfruits_2

Yes, DAWN stands for Debt Advice Within Northumberland and is now a CLS Direct franchisee.

thelawnet

so what costs were actually allowed to the landlord to take from the deposit?

EagerLearner

Great ideas harryhound and certainly more just than what I see developing. Still we have to see the dry rund of this said insurance in practice - possibly in 3-6 months a few might appear and we will see. I see exactly what you do - those middlemen will want to make money somehow. Although doesn't the landlord registering with this scheme have to pay some sort of admin fee to be a part of it? I don't know but would imagine they;d have to fund themselves with admin fees received...

Dawn Advice were helpful, who knows OpalFruits, maybe your hubby helped me out and doesn't know it!

Thelawnet - she got to keep roughly £375, but it cost her over £800 to dally in this, so she effectively lost and paid more than the deposit out, so we see it as justice.

I do think the judge was trying to be fair to both sides given limited evidence, but still thought she could have erred more in our favour given our chasing of the landlady for a year. Still, teaches us the value of a digital camera, eh. I am looking for a new one as we speak, thinking of the Panasonix Lumix TZ3 looks pretty nice in a small but perfectly formed package, kind of like me then :rotfl:

harryhound

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=488025

This is a lively thread.

The only bit I really remember, having read through it, is someone saying that we will be seeing threads complaining about the Tenants' Deposit Scheme and that will get them off the back of Landlords.

The original posting suggests that the insurance companies are trying to make a fortune OR they are expecting a lot of hassle from tenants.

We will see.

Harry

Ms_Legal

dynamiccoins wrote: »

I have to say, I've only read a section of this thread and it reminds me of a couple of years ago when I was on Watch Dog due to my landlord - Neil Morgan of Atlantic Property - they owned loads of places around London and if he is your landlord, I sympathise. He had about 40 outstanding court orders against him for none repayment of deposit and although we won our case against him, we never received the money - 1600 quid.

He had a web of companies - I'm not sure how it worked, but one owned the houses and another we paid the rent to. They were all registered off shore.

The company we won the judgement against went bust.

He was a right nasty piece of work and apparently, when Watch Dog investigated him, they said he was loaded, yet still acted like this to all his tenants.

I never met his wife, Susan Morgan, but I hope she sleeps well at night.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, winning the court order is one thing, getting the cash another.

You're absolutely right about this. A CCJ is one thing, actually getting your money is quite another.

Think carefully before you bother.

EagerLearner

Yes, but had we not bothered (and thanks to this thread) she would have walked away with an easy £625 and a fresh new flat... this way, next time she will hopefully think very carefully before skinning the tenant.