Potential loss of entire rental deposit

clutton_2

"" The agency asked me for a receipt which I couldn't give them as one was never supplied,""

is there not a clause in your tenancy agreement which says "the deposit is £x" - if so - it is normal to assume that the deposit has been paid prior to the signing of the agreement as the deposit forms part of the Terms of the Agreement.

""The agency say they are speaking to their insurers and that they are seeking to return our deposit through loss adjustment.""

this is utterly meaningless..... -

Have they perhaps lodged the deposit with Mydeposits - which is an insurance-backed deposit scheme... you can go to their website and input your post code to find out if this is the case....

N79

pyueck I see you are on your normal fine form of nearly getting it but not quite. Unfortuately the world does not revolve around your T always right LL always wrong view.

pyueck wrote: »

Unfortunately the landlord clearly doesn't understand what 'agency' means. When the landlord gave the letting agent the authority to rent the house he authorised that 'all the agent's actions falling within the scope of the authority given will bind the principal.' The landlord is the principle and therefore is liable for the action of the agent acting on their behalf (taking the deposit).

Correct and hence why the LL is liable to return the deposit whether or not they have it.

Under the housing Act 2004 it is quite clear that the landlord is responsible for both registering the deposit with a protection scheme and repaying you. As he authorised the agent to accept this payment, it is of no concern to you about the disagreement between the agent and the principal.

213. (3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received.

The landlord is clearly arguing that he did not receive the deposit, but he did as he instructed the agent to do so and he is bound by the actions of the agent acting under his control.

It is made clear in the Housing Act 2004 that the landlord cannot lie behind their agent:
212 9(a) references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies

As I have explained above, the High Court has disagreed with this interpretetation - so the key thing here is to focus on getting the deposit back and forget about deposit protection regulations. If you disagree then please read the case (I have provided a link) and explain why you think that the LL will always be liable for deposit non protection contrary to Mr Justice Tugendhat views. But then you never have bother to comment on any of my posts before.

The whole solititors thing is completely meaningless, he has no legal basis for his arguments, its waffle.

The tenancy deposit scheme form should be signed by the landlord not the agent, do you have it?

Reply something like:

Dear Sir,

I paid the deposit to the letting agent acting on your instruction. As landlord you were the principal to the agents action and therefore are bound by them. Under the Housing Act 2004 as Landlord you are responsible for the return of my deposit. As in your previous correspondance you have indicated that you are not recognising your accountability to repay the deposit to myself I have no option but to take legal action against yourself. I will be taking this action in 10 days unless my deposit has been returned in full before this.

xxxxxx

As indicated your proposed letter would merely indicate that you don't really know what you are taling about. The more general action proposed by Clutton and DVardy have the advantage of restricting themselves to the return of the deposit and have an almost certain chance of success once in court. The deposit protection route you propose has a high chance of failure based on the current situation.

clutton_2

""pyueck I see you are on your normal fine form of nearly getting it but not quite. Unfortuately the world does not revolve around your T always right LL always wrong view."

this really made me laugh N97 !!!

Even tho OP has understandably gone to a solicitor, i think you'll find that the sensible posters' advice on here will help you take your landlord to the Small Claims Court for return of the deposit quite easiliy yourself.... the forms are simple to fill in, and we can guide you very well..

Once the LL realises that he Could be liable to pay you back £6,900 (3 times your original deposit) - i suspect he will cough up pretty quickly and sack his agent....

schnide

clutton wrote: »

is there not a clause in your tenancy agreement which says "the deposit is £x" - if so - it is normal to assume that the deposit has been paid prior to the signing of the agreement as the deposit forms part of the Terms of the Agreement.

Yes, very much so. The deposit was paid (of which I have confirmation by email from the agent) and the AST was signed with this clause in it.

Have they perhaps lodged the deposit with Mydeposits - which is an insurance-backed deposit scheme... you can go to their website and input your post code to find out if this is the case....

Unsurprisingly, no it didn't come back as finding anything - although the website said they may have registered with another scheme. Had I not already lost faith in the landlord and agent some time ago, I would have done by now, and will likely send your suggested letter (by email) later today following advice from the solicitor.

Thank you all again.

clutton_2

please dont use email.... you will need a paper trail if this does go to court...

head the letter "Letter Before Action" - make is short and sweet and let them sweat.....

Send it first class and get proof of posting... keep a copy obviously....

schnide

I'm not disputing your suggestion, I'll send it by recorded delivery - but as an aside, I thought emails are fully submissable in court, aren't they?

N79

schnide wrote: »

I'm not disputing your suggestion, I'll send it by recorded delivery - but as an aside, I thought emails are fully submissable in court, aren't they?

No - there is no way to show that an email has been delivered, it is very hard to show that it has not been tampered with and there is no rebutable presumption of service, as with a letter.

schnide

Noted and accepted, with thanks.

clutton_2

Recorded delivery letters can be refused by the recipient ... first class letters can't... but with a proof of posting a court will accept that the document was "served"

BitterAndTwisted

^^ Especially if you send two copies from two different post offices getting proof of posting for both. ^^ A court would accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the documentation had been received correctly. The Post Office could very possibly lose one letter in their system but the chances of losing both are remote.