Landlord/Letting agent letting themselves in

G_M

skint-student-nurse wrote: »

It was just me who was present as OH's dads friend was said lock smith who popped in,looked at the barrel, went to his van and voila! job done! celebrated with a much needed cup of tea.

Darn it!

That ws a scenario I didn't foresee!

G_M

Click belo to see the Prescribed Info. You'll need to click the various links within the TDS section.

http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/tenancy_deposits/tds-Documentation.shtml

HelenRachel

Well done skint nurse! Make a stand for your right to privacy. We've got a chain on the door which makes me happy as I know the LL and LA cant get in when I'm already in so I can't be 'surprised' by them!

dancingfairy

The deposit appears to be protected which is the main thing. It means that if you did take him to court then I feel you would not get the maximum 3 times the deposit penalty. Note I am not a lawyer, others may have relevant experience here. It also means that if there are issues over the return of the deposit there is someone there to arbitrate so you have a much higher chance of getting your money back than if you had to sue your landlord to get it back.
Why do you want to know whether the deposit was protected? Is it to try and take the landlord to court for non-protection/failure to provide the required information or are you concerned about possible notice to quit? I don't know enough to tell you whether the information you have is sufficient with regards to the deposit but I believe that in most cases you have to go through the multi claims part of the small claims court. This can be expensive. Some courts have apparently recently started letting people go on the cheap small claims route but you would need to check. Given that the landlord has protected your deposit and the cost to take him to court then you might be wise to focus your energies elsewhere, for instance finding somewhere else to live.
Obviously it's up to you.
df

skint-student-nurse

Thanks again for all replies. In regards to the deposit, there is an issue regarding the prescribed information but that is a story for another day once i have found a new home,and got my exams at work out the way as i have six years from the day i move out to sort that out... oh, and a lovely section 21 landed through the door today. But, that was to be expected!

jaylee3

skint-student-nurse wrote: »

Thanks again for all replies. In regards to the deposit, there is an issue regarding the prescribed information but that is a story for another day once i have found a new home,and got my exams at work out the way as i have six years from the day i move out to sort that out... oh, and a lovely section 21 landed through the door today. But, that was to be expected!

No worries. At least you can be free of that scumbag shyster of a landlord now!

dancingfairy

O.k so now you need to decide whether you want and can (given you are ill) get out withing the 2 months or whether you want/need to contest it. It may not be valid. I'm sure others on here can help you with the technical details.
Hope you make a speedy recovery as well.
df

skint-student-nurse

morning all, ive just got off the phone from shelter and the argument would be that the section 21 is likely to be invalid for two reasons -
1- the prescribed information was given to me before a deposit was paid
2- a case study from superstrike vs rodregas (?) could be used as once a fixed term ends and the tenancy becomes periodic, like mine, a new tenancy is created so the deposit should be re-protected and new prescribed information given - so effectively my deposit may not be protected

so it seems i have a few things to work with, I am hoping to be well enough to pop down the CAB next week to get pointed in the the right direction. I feel it is a blessing really, as much as i love my little home, ive seen what ruthless liars my letting agents are so im probably best off out of it anyway and its a kick up the bum to really get saving and buy somewhere

rpc

skint-student-nurse wrote: »

2- a case study from superstrike vs rodregas (?) could be used as once a fixed term ends and the tenancy becomes periodic, like mine, a new tenancy is created so the deposit should be re-protected and new prescribed information given - so effectively my deposit may not be protected

You can read the guidance from the deposit protection schemes here:
http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/superstrike-vs-rodrigues-guidance-on-implications.pdf