Landlord taking deposit dispute to County Court

ValHaller

thesaint wrote: »

I agree... to a point. But, they did then ask to sort it out before going to court. You refused, they then went to court 10 days later(i think this is what you said).



How about 10 days?

Actually the LL and the LA have not made a fully formed claim. OP has made a fully formed claim (I want all my money back) and the LL refused to use the ADR scheme.

BUT LL has not made a fully formed claim in that they have not provided a breakdown. I am sure that this was a factor in OP not engaging - there is no point until a breakdown is stated.

MagnumBI

I would say the lack of breakdown is in part, a weakness of the ADR. Their intitial forms simply stated that the LA had requested my full desposit. At that stage, there was no detail as to what actually made up the claim for the deposit amount (I assume that would have came next if the LA had agreed to ADR.)

angrypirate wrote: »

It may also be worth questioning why the difference in claim, as they first only tried to claim the value of the deposit.

I believe the letting agent was limited only to claiming the full amount of the deposit via the DPS (I.e. £450), so could not claim the full £1122.60 they believe they are owed. I expect that will form part of their reasoning for not using ADR.

I've now acknowleded receipt of the court claim forms now anyway in order to get the maximum 28 days to gather information and properly mount my defence.

I'm now in the midst of firing off a Part 18 Request For Further Infomation to get a detailed breakdown of what they're exactly claiming for, before I go any further.

mart.vader

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere in this thread, but is the LA or the LL taking the OP to Court? LA is just an agent for the LL. Do they have the right to take legal action on behalf of the LL ?

Judges these days do not look kindly upon parties that refuse ADR. (The sit-down at the LA's office offered to the OP isn't ADR.)

I know that one company cannot take legal action on behalf of another company.

MagnumBI

mart.vader wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere in this thread, but is the LA or the LL taking the OP to Court? LA is just an agent for the LL. Do they have the right to take legal action on behalf of the LL ?

Judges these days do not look kindly upon parties that refuse ADR. (The sit-down at the LA's office offered to the OP isn't ADR.)

I know that one company cannot take legal action on behalf of another company.

The court action makes no mention of a landlord, it is the Letting Agent taking me to court and making all contact. In the wording of the court claim they refer to my former apartment as a "property we manage".

spacey2012

They will need to use a solicitor or barrister. If they just send an office bod ask the judge what right of audience they have to act on behalf of the landlord in legal proceedings.
The answer is none.

mart.vader

MagnumBI wrote: »

The court action makes no mention of a landlord, it is the Letting Agent taking me to court and making all contact. In the wording of the court claim they refer to my former apartment as a "property we manage".

Hmmm, Sounds as if they don't know what they're doing. It's the LL's white carpets etc. Let them continue the court action. They'll have wasted their time and money.

MagnumBI

To clarify, my landlord as stated on my original Tenancy Agreement (which then rolled over and became periodic) is listed as *Company Name Deleted* LTD, the property developer who built the building. Their address however is "C/O *Estate Agent Name Deleted*" and then the Estate Agents postal address. It is an employee of the Estate Agents who has signed the tenancy agreement.

The claimant on the Court Claim form is again, the name of another employee of the Estate Agents, with the address of the Estate Agents given as his address. He has however marked himself as "Claimants Solicitor" rather than "Claimant" at the foot of the form.

keyser666

Cant the LL request to have an embarrassed defence struck out though if submitted? I would be inclined to defend the whole thing as written out earlier by another member

ValHaller

keyser666 wrote: »

Cant the LL request to have an embarrassed defence struck out though if submitted? I would be inclined to defend the whole thing as written out earlier by another member

The whole point of an embarrassed defence is that you use it if there are not enough details to provide a full defence. LL has not provided enough detail to be able to provide a full defence.

OP is doing the right thing writing to request the detail of the claim - however, OP must not miss the defence deadline waiting for this information if it does not arrive. In which case the embarrassed defence is the one to use.

LL could apply to have an embarrassed defence struck out. Judges don't like procedure being messed with and particularly don't like making rulings which can be appealed. This would probably lead to procedural ruling which might appear to favour the LL. But it would be more a case of giving the LL enough rope to hang himself good and proper in a hearing.

What is particularly evident in this case is that by

• not using the ADR
• not stating a fully formed claim
• giving just 3 days for mediation with the Agent
• going straight to court and still not stating a fully formed claim

the LL is using the court to intimidate OP into coughing up to provide new carpets on the fear of getting a CCJ and messing up his creditworthiness. This claim is not expected by the LL to go as far as court. However OP should not worry too much about the consequences of a CCJ - if it comes to that - and OP is not likely to lose given how vague the current claim is, there will be something like a month to pay before it can be placed on the credit record.

What I think is more likely is that the LL and Agent will become increasingly conciliatory as a hearing approaches if the person who signed the court papers as a solicitor is not actually a solicitor. It may well be worth checking with the Law Society - I am not sure of the process. They may take it to a real solicitor - whom I suspect would not be minded to take forward a court claim signed by a non solicitor in the capacity of solicitor and would in any case have to attempt to recover from failure to state a fully formed claim

OP, please go back to your most recent post and take out the names of the companies involved.

mart.vader

MagnumBI wrote: »

The claimant on the Court Claim form is again, the name of another employee of the Estate Agents, with the address of the Estate Agents given as his address. He has however marked himself as "Claimants Solicitor" rather than "Claimant" at the foot of the form.

AFAIK the Claimant must be the person who has "suffered the loss" i.e. the LL, not the LA. Possibly, your defence would be that the EA has suffered no loss, and you have NO contract with the Estate Agents nor with any employee of the EA.

ValHaller wrote: »

What I think is more likely is that the LL and Agent will become increasingly conciliatory as a hearing approaches if the person who signed the court papers as a solicitor is not actually a solicitor.

I think they would have to make a new claim - AFAIK they can't alter the claim after issue.