Landlord deduct our deposit unfairly

melancholly

shotton123 wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that this is a wonderful law, Tenants do not have a say in whether their deposits are protected, they believe there landlords when they say it has been done, and then have no protection from the law, This leglislation is very complex and advise reading the recent high court decision involving draycott v hannels before starting any court proceedings


[

you don't have to 'believe' them - they are obliged to give you a certificate with a reference number on it and you can check!

BexInLondon

I think at this stage the OP is more concerned with getting this £200 back than any additional fine (the 3X).

OP - contact the landlord as suggested, highlighting that you will not hesitate to resort to court action since you have no recourse to a deposit scheme as he didn't use one.

kmmr

Nettletea wrote: »

we mentioned the protection scheme to the landlord today. he laughed at us saying the tenancy agreement has ended so we could not sue him for not protecting the deposit.:(

As far as I undestand it, this is completely wrong. In fact it is the opposite. If the tenancy was still running, then the LL could have protected the deposit at any time, up to the last day, due to the wording of the law and get off. But once you are out, then he can't protect it, and hence an unprotected deposit can attract the 3X fine.

Just tell him you will have to take it to small claims court, rather than arbitration, as arbitration isn't available due to the money not being in a scheme. And remember to ask for the 3X penalty.

kmmr

And no inventory or evidence of condition at the start or end of the tenancy = no deductions.

neverdespairgirl

tbs624 wrote: »

The CoA is currently in recess, so it will be at least October before any decision/potential clarification on this issue becomes available.

Term starts at the beginning of October, you're right.

Judgments can be handed down during the vacation, though.

N79

kmmr wrote: »

As far as I undestand it, this is completely wrong. In fact it is the opposite. If the tenancy was still running, then the LL could have protected the deposit at any time, up to the last day, due to the wording of the law and get off. But once you are out, then he can't protect it, and hence an unprotected deposit can attract the 3X fine.

The LL could not protect it but they could return it which would have the same effect of defeating the 3x penalty.

shotton123

I am totally confused, is'nt the decision draycott v hannels legally binding as this has been to the high court. Do these cases involve the dps or the two other schemes. I have been advised that because my deposit was very late compliance with dps and therefore no initial requirements I would not succeed in proving breach of section 214 for 3 times penalty amount.

Thanks

tbs624 wrote: »

shotton123, there are two appeal cases (Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher) which were heard in May this year, but in which judgement was reserved.

The CoA is currently in recess, so it will be at least October before any decision/potential clarification on this issue becomes available.

Nettletea_2

BexInLondon wrote: »

I think at this stage the OP is more concerned with getting this £200 back than any additional fine (the 3X).

OP - contact the landlord as suggested, highlighting that you will not hesitate to resort to court action since you have no recourse to a deposit scheme as he didn't use one.

we are not greedy. we just want our full deposit back. up to date, we havent received any money from him. he phoned us yesterday saying he is going to deduct 200 pounds from the deposit, which we told him we are very unhappy with.

never have had problems with our other landlords. always kept rented property tidy and clean, always paid rent timely, always got full deposit back except this one.

thanks for all your reply. just wondering if we can get our full deposit back if we sue him. he claimed he did a lot cleaning after we left and kept all the invoices. but when we vacated the property, he said everything was fine and would give us deposit back.

N79

shotton123 wrote: »

I am totally confused, is'nt the decision draycott v hannels legally binding as this has been to the high court. Do these cases involve the dps or the two other schemes. I have been advised that because my deposit was very late compliance with dps and therefore no initial requirements I would not succeed in proving breach of section 214 for 3 times penalty amount.

Thanks

Appeal court is higher than the high court so any appeal court rulings would supersede high court rulings if they cover the same point in law.

neverdespairgirl

shotton123 wrote: »

I am totally confused, is'nt the decision draycott v hannels legally binding as this has been to the high court. Do these cases involve the dps or the two other schemes. I have been advised that because my deposit was very late compliance with dps and therefore no initial requirements I would not succeed in proving breach of section 214 for 3 times penalty amount.

Thanks

Court of Appeal trumps the High Court.