Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

theartfullodger

£23.69k awarded to tenant, conviction for assault, Mr Musso the landlord..

See..
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/03/unlawful-eviction-quantum-assault-and-expulsion/

suited-aces

I could have swore I read somewhere that 3x deposit hadn't been tested at court yet, does that ruling mean it has been now?

lynzpower

theartfullodger wrote: »

£23.69k awarded to tenant, conviction for assault, Mr Musso the landlord..

See..
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/03/unlawful-eviction-quantum-assault-and-expulsion/

This is highly relevant so thank you so much for bringing this to everyones attention. The T in this case lets remind ourselves is awarded:

Damages assessed as:For trespass to the person – £15,000, including aggravated damages due to injury to feelings.Exemplary damages – £2,000 on a finding that part of the reason for the eviction was the dispute over withholding rent. The DJ found that Mr B was entirely justified in withholding rent.
Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment – £4,000 assessed on the basis of 22 days spent sofa surfing or in unsuitable B&B/hostel accommodation.
Special damages (loss of belongings) – £750
Return of unprotected deposit – £485, and 3 x deposit (£1,455) penalty for failure to comply with the Housing Act 2004 requirements."

It is often stated on this site from posters that the 3x deposit charge has not been clarified in court as yet- I think this shows us that it has.

Indeed I can thnik of a few posters over recent months who have had to sofa surf, and this info should be welcome to those who have had to suffer illegal evictions. I think the court here took it seriously.

theartfullodger

suited-aces wrote: »

I could have swore I read somewhere that 3x deposit hadn't been tested at court yet, does that ruling mean it has been now?

It's a dynamic & developing area of law .. this might be useful...
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/02/tenancy-deposits-in-the-localism-bill/

This is highly relevant so thank you so much for bringing this to everyones attention.

Delighted!

Gorgeous_George

I cannot imagine why a landlord (or any law-abiding citizen) would not comply with the law regarding tenancy deposits. I'm not sure that a judge would award 3x deposit JUST for not protecting it. That's not to say that they shouldn't - the law is quite straightforward.


GG

lynzpower

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I cannot imagine why a landlord (or any law-abiding citizen) would not comply with the law regarding tenancy deposits. I'm not sure that a judge would award 3x deposit JUST for not protecting it. That's not to say that they shouldn't - the law is quite straightforward.


GG

I think it might be because it is not that well known that it has been tested in court- certainly it has been peddled on here as such for a long while.

Some of these rogues are not real landlords ( obviously) they dont believe they need to comply with law and stuff, hence the TDS like undertaking maintainence is just not something they are going to be mithered to do, and they feel that they will appeal and get away with it. the RPT site is filled with LLs appealing improvement notices for things like safe electrics and hot water provision!

suited-aces

Pardon my ignorance, whats the rpt site?

lynzpower

http://www.rpts.gov.uk/

Look under decisions

BitterAndTwisted

lynzpower wrote: »

It is often stated on this site from posters that the 3x deposit charge has not been clarified in court as yet- I think this shows us that it has.

I understood the complete opposite: that the three times deposit was thought to be mandatory until a recent Appeal Court ruling, so now it's not. For most tenants the threat of the possible penalty should be enough to get most landlords reaching for their chequebooks.

mchale

madeupname1 wrote: »

I find your posts quite curious. I assume you are referring to Mr S when you say that you are glad that the LAG has brought this gentlemen to you attention. Whilst there is no doubt Mr. S's behaviour cannot be excused, T is hardly a sympathetic figure. He had built up rent arrears of over £2,000 and caused damage to the Property. He then refused to move out, having indicated that he would. He unreasonably refused to engage in dialogue for 5 weeks and to top it off, notwithstanding his rent arrears, somehow managed to find at least some money to go away on holiday. Frankly, his behaviour is pretty appalling too, yet you don't seem to level any kind of criticism at his door ...

Bumped: so maybe the artfullodger can reply to your very accurate and fair observations