Landlord didn't use a Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme

MoneySaver9999_2

Kazzaroo wrote: »

There is a process as has already been outlined however the law doesnt allow "moral" judgements so its all or nothing, Deposit returned and no legal action or go to court and claim 3x deposit PLUS court costs.

Its ultimately up to the LL if they want to compensate you,it may be a genuine mistake (he forgot to do it for whatever reason) and if you have a good relationship with him then i dont see the point in going to court unless you absolutely have to,Court wont look favorably on you (although will proberly still grant you the judgement because LL broke the law) IF you havent tried to resolve it formally.

Please look at my latest reply. I have decided to peruse my deposit and the penalty. However the landlord has now sent an email as detailed in my latest post.

Thanks

Kazzaroo

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

Update on this:

The landlord has provided me with some deductions they are planning to make to the deposit. Much of which I don't agree with. dont have to agree to any deductions and if he only returned part of the deposit then your only action would be to go to court for the rest of the outstanding deposit PLUS 3x deposit amount

They also make no reference to the compensation for their failure in protecting my deposit. no legal reason why he should offer compensation

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

should I waste my time arguing with them about the deductions and the penalty for not protecting my deposit. Or, given that they emailed (instead of posting), just ignore and file proceedings pretending I didn't receive the email?

You could as he hasnt sent it in a way the court would approve of HOWEVER if you wish to maintain the moral high ground i wouldnt ignore the email but i would reply stating what you put in written letter saying IF you took it to court then you are entitled to claim 3x the deposit amount,may kick him into gear to drop the deductions because you could claim those back in the court case (if they have no basis,even if they did have basis the judge would proberly deduct the amount from the 3x deposit),it would be in his best interest finacially to give you the full deposit back and you sign something saying you wont take him to court for the deposit protection failure.

MoneySaver9999_2

xoAmyox wrote: »

Personally, I would proceed. A landlord that fails to protect the deposit (which has been law for quite some time) and then chooses to propose potentially dubious deductions, does not appear to be a decent one.

However, I'm not sure on the rules surrounding the email, but I've been told that the court will not look fondly on applicants who do not attempt to reach a resolution before going through the court process.

Please do keep us updated with progress.

Will keep you updated throughout this process.

The way I see it, I will receive at least twice my deposit (including the original amount). Things don't look good for the landlord at all (there are factors which I haven't highlighted on this forum yet) and I will press for the maximum penalty.

In my letter, I requested payment (including the penalty) or a substantial written response. Now, I don't know whether email is considered a written response and I also don't see how it can be considered substantial when they haven't address the penalty, only the initial deposit.

Road_Hog

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

I don't mind going to court to get what I believe I am entitled to.

I do love an entitlement culture. Why didn't you just ask the LL for your full deposit back and then say that you would uses the court if necessary or did you always plan on getting a bit of extra bunce?

Kazzaroo

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

I don't know whether email is considered a written response

its not the recommended way of communicating however it isnt the worst as at least it is written down in some way,posted letters are always better because the dates/times etc of postage cannot be argued with so gives a good idea of what has happened over time.

MoneySaver9999_2

Road_Hog wrote: »

I do love an entitlement culture. Why didn't you just ask the LL for your full deposit back and then say that you would uses the court if necessary or did you always plan on getting a bit of extra bunce?

Please don't judge when you don't know the full facts. I asked the landlord for my deposit back (no penalty) two times and was simply ignored.

MoneySaver9999_2

Kazzaroo wrote: »

its not the recommended way of communicating however it isnt the worst as at least it is written down in some way,posted letters are always better because the dates/times etc of postage cannot be argued with so gives a good idea of what has happened over time.

What about the substantial element? Is the response I've received considered substantial?

Kazzaroo

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

Please don't judge when you don't know the full facts. I asked the landlord for my deposit back (no penalty) two times and was simply ignored.

i think the confusion is the way you phrased it,it may have appeared as that in your letter you asked for an amount 2x the deposit rather than asking 2x FOR the deposit

Kazzaroo

MoneySaver9999 wrote: »

What about the substantial element? Is the response I've received considered substantial?

Some tenants get no contact at all but if you have received no written,posted letters then i would argue its not substantial but not negligent or dismissive.

Yorkie1

The LL is under no obligation at present to pay you anything other than your deposit, less agreed deductions. Your insistence that you would go to court unless you got the whole deposit returned plus the deposit again as compensation may well have backfired.

You are not entitled to any compensation as you have suffered no loss. Only a court can award you the penalty (different concept to compensation) and then only after a full hearing.

You need to separate out what will look like blackmail / greed to the LL (not saying necessarily that's what is in your mind but that is how it may well come across), from what deductions are proposed to the deposit.

Why do you say they are not justified?