LL Didn't own house when he rented it to us

may_fair

franklee wrote: »

The point being that in a simple case of a landlord failing to protect the deposit over an extended period the tenant who pushes for deposit protection compliance likely to get a landlord to return or protect the deposit, not to mention a tenant would stop when that happens, before things go anywhere near as far as Potts.

That is not the point. The point I made was that non-compliance claims should not be DIY'ed as you advised. Potts could have easily won if she had pleaded her claim correctly.

franklee

may_fair wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it's an extremely good example of DIY pleading failing miserably and costing the claimant a lot of money, contrary to your advice to DIY non-compliance claims.

may_fair wrote: »

That is not the point. The point I made was that non-compliance claims should not be DIY'ed as you advised. Potts could have easily won if she had pleaded her claim correctly.

I didn't intend my comment "Yes it's a different track but you can still DIY can't you" to be advice to DIY. The initial point came about as I disagreed that establishing the let was not a holiday let but an AST doesn't make much difference to getting the deposit back. I said it does as T has the option to use a 3 x deposit claim which may get deposit protected or returned without too much fuss - by which I hoped the LL would cave early on. Clearly if it doesn't work with warning letters then T should research very carefully before going further. I certainly wouldn't DIY a complicated case like Potts, and certainly would not appeal etc. I meant I'd consider DIYing if it was a simple case of the LL failing to protect at all and mainly with the hope the LL complies early on. Those are the points I was trying to get across in my posts. Anyone would be wrong to consider that advice, I've no idea who if anyone here is even qualified to give advice. I thought posts on this forum are discussion points, questions raised or information pointed to that may give readers ideas to consider and check out or themselves if they wish. To that end I thought we had an interesting thread here even if it did digress somewhat.

It raises the point though - if perusing a non-compliance claim is that difficult and expensive such that even simple cases should not be DIY, the legislation is pretty unless for a lot of T's. I did think helping T's whose LL's go under would be one of the scheme's uses but it's not any help if the T has to wait till the end of the tenancy and claim the deposit back in the old way as by then the deposit may have gone, which is back where we were before deposit protection.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

It raises the point though - if perusing a non-compliance claim is that difficult and expensive such that even simple cases should not be DIY, the legislation is pretty unless for a lot of T's.

In practice the 3x penalty is mostly useless indeed.

franklee wrote: »

I did think helping T's whose LL's go under would be one of the scheme's uses but it's not any help if the T has to wait till the end of the tenancy and claim the deposit back in the old way

In any case the tenant can only claim the deposit back when the tenancy has terminated.
Even if the deposit is protected the tenant may still sue "in the old way" to get it back.

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

In practice the 3x penalty is mostly useless indeed.



In any case the tenant can only claim the deposit back when the tenancy has terminated.
Even if the deposit is protected the tenant may still sue "in the old way" to get it back.

Yes. My worry was if a LL had spent the deposit by the end of the tenancy so doesn't have it to give back, leaving T's claim hard to enforce. At least if it's been protected a T knows it's safe even though as you say T has to wait to actually get his mitts on it. I'd worry about that more with a LL getting into financial difficulties like not paying the mortgage even when T has been paying rent.

may_fair

franklee wrote: »

It raises the point though - if perusing a non-compliance claim is that difficult and expensive such that even simple cases should not be DIY, the legislation is pretty unless for a lot of T's.

There is no such thing as a 'simple' non-compliance claim. Unless T is aware of all the recent binding judgments, knows s.212-214 Housing Act 2004 backwards, knows how to correctly plead a claim under s.214, then there will be a risk of losing money, because non-compliance claims are not allocated to the small claims track but to the multi-track. The court fees alone are in excess of £1,000 whatever the value of the claim and you're also exposed to the LL's legal costs. A novice slip-up like Potts made can lose you the claim.

may_fair

franklee wrote: »

At least if it's been protected a T knows it's safe

Even when a deposit is protected, it's not necessarily safe. For example, MyDeposits will cancel protection if the LL goes bankrupt.

cjade82

Ok everyone a quick update
I had a knock at the door from two big blokes telling me i had to ring the landlords agent because i haven't paid my rent, So i rung the management company that are dealing with the bank instead,They said to ring police as this is harassment I am not to give them any money and the chances are I have lost my deposit as he had no rights to take any money from us or give us a ten agreement as its not his house.
At some point they will be over to change the locks but get this, They went onto say that they will not be charging me rent as the council will be looking to rehouse us locally in sept(new builds with the bids being taken now) and they don't want to enter into any agreements with us they just want to sell asap and as long as we are gone within a couple of months they will be happy.
So a big headache but we might have a new house to go to and free rent in the meantime result

jjlandlord

cjade82 wrote: »

the chances are I have lost my deposit as he had no rights to take any money from us or give us a ten agreement as its not his house.

In principle there is no relation whether the 'landlord' had a right to grant a tenancy and you losing the deposit.
The person named as 'landlord' on your tenancy agreement owes you the money and that you can sue him for it.

cjade82 wrote: »

At some point they will be over to change the locks

Obviously they will give you the keys, right?

cjade82 wrote: »

They went onto say that they will not be charging me rent as the council will be looking to rehouse us locally in sept(new builds with the bids being taken now) and they don't want to enter into any agreements with us they just want to sell asap and as long as we are gone within a couple of months they will be happy.

Be careful. They need a court order to evict you and you can only try to have the council rehouse you under special circumstances.
Seems to me that they are considering you squatters (what you could very well be actually)...

cjade82

i am not supposed to contact the old LL so how do i tackle him for the deposit? should i just set a lawyer on him?
Anybody have some suggestions?

jjlandlord

cjade82 wrote: »

i am not supposed to contact the old LL

Why not? He owes you money, you go after him.