Please Help! My Mum is in tears! :(

cakey

wezznco wrote: »

Thank you for replying,

The Court Claim is for 3 times the deposit, over 2000 pounds! What can Mum do? It's in her bank now. Where can she put it?

The court claim is ill founded? How does that help Mum?

Thank you, I feel so bad for Mum, she's crying over this whole ordeal and isn't the right type of person to let a house.

Sam

hi don't worry about the 3 x the deposit, we recently we took our landlord to court for 3 x the deposit, a solicitor for the landlord produced a skeleton bill, basically this is a bill that has recently bee passed, it stated that as long as the landlord protected it within 14 days of being ordered to in court, then we couldn't claim 3 x the deposit

N79

cakey wrote: »

hi don't worry about the 3 x the deposit, we recently we took our landlord to court for 3 x the deposit, a solicitor for the landlord produced a skeleton bill, basically this is a bill that has recently bee passed, it stated that as long as the landlord protected it within 14 days of being ordered to in court, then we couldn't claim 3 x the deposit

A what? I'm sorry but I don't think you understood what happened in your court case.

There is no such thing as a skeleton bill. Bills are draft until they gain Royal Assent. Afterwards they are law.

Maybe you mean that the LL presented a skeleton (or outline) arguement to the court that indicated what they would present as their defence and on this basis you folded?

dopester

princeofpounds wrote: »

Draycott was the first case at a sufficiently high enough level to consider this, and the ruling kind of surprised everyone. 1Not 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. 2Only Draycott matters.

1) Not wrong? Is that judge also a BTL landlord? It's so heavily advantageous to the landlord/agency in my opinion, and leaves tenants chasing and stressed in trying to recover their deposit.... allowing a landlord to protect it at a time of their choosing.

With any legal obligation / penalty for a landlord/agency to protect it within a determined time-period at the beginning of a tenancy, there is little chance of tenant recovering their non-protected deposit if the landlord/agency goes bankrupt/bust during the tenancy. The judgement has got loads of big holes in it, in my opinion. I hope it begins to be reflected in lower rents, because tenants now have another disadvantage put their way.

2) I suspect you're right - but I'd be surprised if that ruling stands for long before a new ruling balances things out. If it doesn't then tenants should haggle harder for lower rents imo.

This is by no means the end of the matter though. This case is still capable of being taken to the Court of Appeal and there are at least two more cases which will see judgements handed down from that Court within the next few months and they could have the effect of altering the position again.

princeofpounds

1) Not wrong? Is that judge also a BTL landlord? It's so heavily advantageous to the landlord/agency in my opinion, and leaves tenants chasing and stressed in trying to recover their deposit.... allowing a landlord to protect it at a time of their choosing.

not legally wrong, but morally wrong perhaps!

This isn't the fault of the judge. The legislation was actually drafted very badly which left it ambiguous on the penalty. Of course politics being politics you can't just rush back to parliament, ask them what they meant to say and get them to change it - it would just start a whole new argument!

I totally agree it makes a nonsense of the legislation to allow retrospective protection; there is no protection for the tenant should the landlord default in the interim.

Of course, what it means for tenants is that they need to threaten court action on day 15. Nicely.

pinkshoes

wezznco wrote: »

thank you all so much, but amongst all the debate,

who do i give the deposit to today?

either of the deposit schemes!!!!

It really doesn't matter which one; the important thing is that she does (did!) it TODAY!

Did she do it?

clutton_2

There is a new case in the High Court on May 5th - this may clarify things even futher....

[EMAIL="O@P"]OP[/EMAIL] - get your mum to register the deposit with MyDeposits online today - she will have to pay about £30 to do so using debit card , she will then legallyh keep the Actual deposit in her own bank account... she will get a Certificate from Mydeposits on line - print it out, sign it, take it to the tenant, get her to sign it if you can, then give her a copy and mum keep a copy.... Take an independent witness with you who is willing to write a Statement of Truth as to exactly what happened - eg that you tried to get her to sign the deposit Certificate and that the tenant refused... you will need this statement when it gets to court to get the tenant out.... the witness need not attend court....

next join National landlords Association 0121 359 8501 - and talk to their legal helpline who can talk you through all the paperwork needed to get this tenant out....

Then come back to us and tell us the date of

the initial tenancy agreement
the rent
the fixed term

then we can advise as to what to do next

if you dont want to do it yourself then contact Shelter and ask them for a local solicitor expert in landlord and tenant legislation... but this will cost you a great deal of money

Landlord Action will get her out but will also cost you several hundred pounds....

Trollfever

There is a new case in the High Court on May 5th - this may clarify things even futher....

Two key cases, Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher, are both being heard together before the Court of Appeal on 7 May.



.

cakey

N79 wrote: »

A what? I'm sorry but I don't think you understood what happened in your court case.

There is no such thing as a skeleton bill. Bills are draft until they gain Royal Assent. Afterwards they are law.

Maybe you mean that the LL presented a skeleton (or outline) arguement to the court that indicated what they would present as their defence and on this basis you folded?

no, it was a skeleton bill, a bill that has been outlined, drawn up and approved, they call it a skeleton bill as it has just been passed and not all magistrates would be aware of the new legislation. it states that the landlord has 14 days from the court date to register the deposit