Please Help! My Mum is in tears! :(

adouglasmhor

vaporate wrote: »

lol I'm very sure. Why? Because I sued 1 year ago for it. Unless laws have changed already...

:j Since when is putting a tenants money in a LL bank account not illegal? Maybe making interest on it too.

I'm sitting nicely here thanks.

So you sued for FRAUD?

Hilarious.

vaporate

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So you sued for FRAUD?

Hilarious.

It was, we got 3 times deposit.

:cool:

adouglasmhor

vaporate wrote: »

lol Why not.

As for time limit, there was in my case, well sisters. The funny thing was, the landlord actually printed a receipt the day we challenged her lmao.

Priceless. Yet the LL also emailed it to us as proof, which we used as evidence.

If she had used one of the other schemes you would have had no case. That's why they are being recomended for OP's mum to look at.

adouglasmhor

vaporate wrote: »

It was, we got 3 times deposit.

:cool:

Yes for breaking the deposit laws, not fraud. The court never prosecuted the LL for fraud which is a criminal offence.

princeofpounds

When was that last year? Because I had the pleasure of taking one big A hole of a landlord to small claim court for, well for my sis.

All the cases that were considered up until the Draycott case were by local courts. Decisions went both ways. Initially many judges let the landlords off. Then they realised that wasn't right and started enforcing it in almost all cases.

It took all this time for a decision to reach the appeal stage at a court that, importantly, sets precedent. Legally speaking, all the previous cases were meaningless to anyone outside that case.

Draycott was the first case at a sufficiently high enough level to consider this, and the ruling kind of surprised everyone. Not that it was wrong as such, just that it considered quirky details that no-one had really thought relevant.

I suspect the whole matter will be cleared up by all the schemes adopting the 14 day internal rule. Even the DPS didn't start off that way, they only introduced it after several months. Maybe someone there worked out that it actually mattered.

So good luck for you that you managed to get your case done, but it doesn't matter going forward. Only Draycott matters.

N79

The other interesting and quite unexpected quirk of the Draycott case was that the judge held that the LA could be liable as well as, or indeed instead of the LL if the LA had had total responsibility for the deposit and not the LL. Not relevent here but I'm sure that most LAs have missed this.

MissMoneypenny

princeofpounds wrote: »

Only Draycott matters.

But only until the law is better worded or the other schemes amend their wording.

Jowo_2

vaporate wrote: »

Second.

Your mum broke the law and put the deposit in her account which is fraud.

This isn't fraud, nor is it a criminal offence. Failure to protect the deposit is a breach of civil law and is dealt with in the small claims court - the landlord is not prosecuted in a criminal court.

FraudBuster

The Fraud Act 2006:


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060035_en_1

Jowo_2

FraudBuster wrote: »

The Fraud Act 2006:


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060035_en_1

You can cite whatever laws you wish on the topic of fraud which are entirely irrelevant to this thread. The tenancy deposit scheme comes within the realm of civil law. Those landlords that are found to be in breach of it are not prosecuted for fraud, nor subject to any type of criminal prosecution, nor receive a criminal record if they are found in breach of it. It is resolved via a tribunal or county court.

What are you hoping to achieve by wrongfully informing the OP that his elderly mother will be prosecuted in a criminal court for fraud because she did not put the tenant's deposit into a deposit scheme?