Please help re flat deposit

irnbru_2

prudryden wrote:

For my own education, why couldn't the LA claim for costs if they have done everything possible to satisfy the plantive's requests during the discovery stage and they have no further information to provide?

They're defending a motion that they are liable for return of the deposit. They'ld have to show that EL knew they weren't liable and hence the action was frivolous or malevolent.

From what EL has said, they have assumed that the LA will arbitrate in any dispute and not just hand the deposit to the LL on the basis of some handwritten receipts. Nor while the LA knew a SCC was being pursued.

The crux of the decision rests on the contract, for the deposit, between EL and LA. They obviously held it, wouldn't return it to EL as they were in dispute and only returned it to the LL in August on presentation of receipts. They can hardly say they weren't responsable. It's whether they were negligent (wrong) to return it and thus broke the contract.

barnaby-bear

irnbru wrote:

The crux of the decision rests on the contract, for the deposit, between EL and LA. They obviously held it, wouldn't return it to EL as they were in dispute and only returned it to the LL in August on presentation of receipts. They can hardly say they weren't responsable. It's whether they were negligent (wrong) to return it and thus broke the contract.

They also failed to provide a proper contact address, thus exacerbating the situation. MEntioning the mulitple names, addresses etc. Their involvement made the situation worse. Definitely use the offer letter they sent - showing that they are in effect tha landlady and her agent. If after deposit returned they had no role why the hell were they passing on offers to discuss it in spetember?

EagerLearner

Thanks Irnbru - they seem to have the upper hand as they are not managing agents, therefore are only liable to the landlady, not to us.

The contract clearly states deductions will be made from the deposit if necessary - it also states monies will be refunded within one month (which it wasn't due to her delay in presenting receipts).

They have washed their hands of it and handed her back the money when she showed them receipts, even knowing we disputed the amount already.

They did accept her 'receipts' which some were from her 'decorator' at the same c/o address the LA had on file for her.

Also some receipts are handwritten.

They knew we were planning to take her to court and I presume wanted to 'get out of it' by just giving her the money back asap.

On the 13th July I e-mailed them, within my e-mail was the following para:

"As you know we have been good tenants, always paying on time and were forced to leave the property by the landlord so that private tenants could be pursued in order for Parks residential to no longer receive commission, but as I said today, we have obtained advice from ARLA who tell us that we have the right to take the matter further and will have no choice but to do this if we believe the landlord does not intend to return a fair deposit."

prudryden

Would it then come down to the role the LA was acting in?
(1) A simple introducer of the two parties or
(2) A participate in the contract.
and were they acting as a stakeholder or only holding the deposit at the LL request, instead, as many LLs do, in their own account, and whether EL understood that they were not a stakeholder.

Sorry - does that make sense?

irnbru_2

EagerLearner wrote:

Thanks Irnbru - they seem to have the upper hand as they are not managing agents, therefore are only liable to the landlady, not to us.

MAs or LAs doesn't matter - they held the deposit and were arbitrators in any dispute. It's their tough luck that they chose to mess with you

Write down the bullet points of your dispute with the LA noting all the points raised in this thread and references to ARLA etc. That'll remind you and the court that your basis of holding them responsable is wholely valid.

irnbru_2

prudryden wrote:

Would it then come down to the role the LA was acting in?

IMHO, yes.

EagerLearner

But if the LA stated in contract that fees would be deducted from deposit depending on costs incurred, and on many occasion they said they were acting for the landlady not us, they were never arbitrators.

Anyway, just got home to see that the letter from the court said that our copies of documents had to be with them no later than 14 days before the trial?

prudryden

EagerLearner wrote:

But if the LA stated in contract that fees would be deducted from deposit depending on costs incurred, and on many occasion they said they were acting for the landlady not us, they were never arbitrators.

Anyway, just got home to see that the letter from the court said that our copies of documents had to be with them no later than 14 days before the trial?

Yep - That is how my contracts read. The tenants pay me the rent and deposit to me thru the agent, at my request. The rent gets transferred to me by the agent, but, again at my request, they keep the deposit for me in safe custody. It seems to me to be the same as if I had told them to pay me thru Barclays Bank. In other words, I just use the agent as a pseudo- banking facility. I pay a fee to the agent for that service, just like I would a business account with Barclays.
I don't know - but would you be able to sue Barclays Bank for passing on the deposit to me if I had told them to?

I like to see some other comments about this, because I don't know the answer.

hippychick1

Wow EL!! Just stumbled across this thread and have been glued to the screen for 2 hours. Keep going you're doing so well.
Have a fantastic holiday (I'm so jealous!)

Edna_Bucket_2

EagerLearner wrote:

...they were acting for the landlady not us, they were never arbitrators.

The word "arbritrator" should never have been used in this thread - it's a red herring and I suggest everyone drops it.

What the LA do have is a professional duty of care to both parties. You also have an effective business contract with them because it was them, not the LL who produced the leasing contract for you to sign, and most importantly them who you actually gave money to.