Potential loss of entire rental deposit

schnide

Fantastic, I'll be sending two copies to both the agent and landlord.

I have been for a free half hour surgery at a local solicitors. They have said that Draycott vs Hanells would unlikely apply to this case because no section 8 or 21 order was served to end the tenancy. The tenancy in our case was ended by mutual consent.

Nevertheless, they advised me to read sections 212-216 of the Housing Act and to initially pursue the claim through the Small Claims Court. While I would be claiming for the £2,310 deposit, the Court may decide that the 3x penalty be awarded.

My intention therefore is to issue a brief letter before action to both the landlord and the agent, using a copy to each from two different post offices, by first class post with a proof of postage.

pyueck

N79 wrote: »

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.

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

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.


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.

Sorry but why do you continue to insult any sensible opinions I give? Just why exactly do I not really know what I am taking about, what opinion that I gave in my previous post is so ignorant to merit this???? The legal case you refer to is nothing to do with the OP's problem, as that relates to protecting the deposit, the OP's problem is that the landlord is disputing being the recipient of the deposit and therefore responsible for its return. The OP has now got advice, which I must say sounds exactly like what my opinion was in.

Enough of the hate mail against me, I always back up my opinions with statute, something that most posters never do. If you don't agree with my interpretation of the law please let everybody know why, don't just insult me with complete slurs.

I make no apologies that I try to identify the areas of law that will give most protection to tenants. I know this may be unconfortable for some landlords, but I state again, attack me on points of law not complete slurs.

schnide

As much as I understand how easy it is to get into arguments on the internet, can I ask (both selfishly, and for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread who may be in a similar situation) that any disagreements be limited to the legal points at hand so that we can arrive at a correct assessment?

I have been and continue to be grateful for everyone's input on this - it's been indispensable.

clutton_2

sorry Schnide - we have to answer this person as he continues to dish out incorrect information which may be taken as law by newbies to this site.... N97 and a few others, including me, have far greater experience of LL&T legislation, and practice, than most... and especially more experience than pyueck.....

pyueck asks Why do we insult you ?

Your signature for a start

""Before you sign a tenancy agreement, always check there is not a section 21 at the back, as if there is you could be evicted with almost no notice at the end of your tenancy. ""

this is nonsense...... if the landlord has to go through the courts and a tenant has been issued a S21 early in a tenancy, the tenant can probably remain 3-4 months in the property after the expiration of a fixed term.... so this is not "almost no notice" by any stretch of the imagination.....

we have already explained this to you over and over again.. but you still hold steadfast to this archaic view......

This is just one example of your twisting the facts to suit your view of the landlord-tenant relationship and laws covering them....

Pyeuk says ""I make no apologies that I try to identify the areas of law that will give most protection to tenants.""

neither do we landlords who post here... most of us are generally on the tenants side on this forum - and we come here to assist tenants fight bad landlords - such as OP is experiencing.

Good luck OP - do let us know how you get on....

pyueck

clutton wrote: »

sorry Schnide - we have to answer this person as he continues to dish out incorrect information which may be taken as law by newbies to this site.... N97 and a few others, including me, have far greater experience of LL&T legislation, and practice, than most... and especially more experience than pyueck.....

This is outragous!!! Two landlords ganging up on the person trying to protect tenants. Please fill me in on my lack of experience of the law and what incorrect information I have given. What gives you the right to make presumptions about me?

losgiganteskid

I would have thought that the question that needs to be confirmed is "Who's agent is it"

If the Landlord put his property in the hands of a letting agent then my guess is that the agent is acting on behalf of the landlord and any mis representation of funds is between the agent and the landlord - meaning between them they are responsible for the return of the deposit. If on the other hand the agent is deemed to be the tenants agent - logic dictates that the Landlord is in the clear and the deposit was handed to the tenants agent who should of arranged protection

I had a problem with a letting agent some time ago where they took 6 months rent in advance plus the deposit and failed to pass this on to the Landlord - as far as the new tenant was concerned he had paid "my" agent and if they failed to pass it on it was my problem and not his - alternatively if it could be proven that the agent was in fact the tenants agent acting on his behalf the landlord could seek further funds from the tenant - luckily in this case monies were received prior to "his" or "my" agent going belly

clutton_2

it is usual that a landlord and a letting agent sign an agreement (including the LA's terms and conditions) as to their contractual obligations and duties....

i have only very rarely come across a contract signed between agent and tenant... my guess is that normally the tenant assumes acceptance of the agents terms and conditions implicitly and verbally rather than in written form...

even if this is not the case

under LL&T legislation it is clear (i am sure N97 will be along soon to quote chapter and verse) that the landlord has the legal contractual obligation to the tenant

pyueck

losgiganteskid wrote: »

I would have thought that the question that needs to be confirmed is "Who's agent is it"

If the Landlord put his property in the hands of a letting agent then my guess is that the agent is acting on behalf of the landlord and any mis representation of funds is between the agent and the landlord - meaning between them they are responsible for the return of the deposit. If on the other hand the agent is deemed to be the tenants agent - logic dictates that the Landlord is in the clear and the deposit was handed to the tenants agent who should of arranged protection

I had a problem with a letting agent some time ago where they took 6 months rent in advance plus the deposit and failed to pass this on to the Landlord - as far as the new tenant was concerned he had paid "my" agent and if they failed to pass it on it was my problem and not his - alternatively if it could be proven that the agent was in fact the tenants agent acting on his behalf the landlord could seek further funds from the tenant - luckily in this case monies were received prior to "his" or "my" agent going belly

The agent is definately the agent of the landlord and not the tenant. See http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/renting_privately/letting_agencies#2 where it explicitly states Letting agencies act on behalf of landlords, not tenants. As such the action of the agent (such as taking money) binds the principle, and any dispute between the agent and principle (landlord) is a matter for them to dispute. If a landlord instructs the agent to act, then the landlord is bound by the actions of the agent on the third party.

losgiganteskid

I agree - but by virtue of the tenant paying the agent a fee could it not be considered that the agent is acting on behalf of the tenant ??

N79

clutton wrote: »

it is usual that a landlord and a letting agent sign an agreement (including the LA's terms and conditions) as to their contractual obligations and duties....

i have only very rarely come across a contract signed between agent and tenant... my guess is that normally the tenant assumes acceptance of the agents terms and conditions implicitly and verbally rather than in written form...

even if this is not the case

under LL&T legislation it is clear (i am sure N97 will be along soon to quote chapter and verse) that the landlord has the legal contractual obligation to the tenant

No - the OP has seen a solictor and therefore now has professional advice. Although I don't understand the advice as relayed by the OP I am well aware that I do not have the full facts of the case and I am not going to be unprofessional and comment or question the advice given by a lawyer under the terms of a professional relationship while only in possession of a fraction of the facts.