Section 21 Notice and wanting to buy

spooky69

franklee wrote: »

So your tenancy went periodic in June 2007? A periodic tenancy is a new tenancy and in your case it started after the deposit regs came in which was April 2007.

So if the deposit wasn't protected in time or if you weren't served the deposit prescribed information the section 21 notice isn't valid. Ring all the deposit schemes and ask them first hand if they have your deposit. If the landlord applies to court for possession he will likely claim the court fee (280) and solicitor's fee (60ish) against you. You need to defend against this by completing the form that will be enclosed when you get the paperwork form the county court. Your defence is no deposit protection AND no prescribed information given to you.

Meanwhile serve your own one period's notice that ends and the end of a period. Move out on or before the end of your notice.

Defend any unfair deposit deductions.

If you wish to sue for 1-3 times deposit for failure to protect the deposit and serve the prescribed information check out the current law there is an amendment going through ATM IIRC.

Super. Thanks for that. I'll call all three of them to confirm about the deposit. Notice will be served regardless - no doubt that will cause some consternation.

I find it odd that the agents would specifically state that it is with My Deposits if it isn't, unless their records are simply incomplete, they have made assumptions or the original agents were supposed to do it but forgot. Maybe it is with My Deposits but simply isn't showing in the online search for some reason.

A few calls should reveal all!

spooky69

So, it turns out that my deposit was NOT protected. The agents, having previously said that it was protected with My Deposits, now say it was not protected and that the previous agents transferred it to them (when they bought them in 2012/2013) and they still did not protect my deposit. Oh dear...

They have also said that this changes nothing and that they are still going to deduct for dilapidations.

My feeling is that I am due compensation, return of deposit and that their Section 21 is invalid.

I feel a trip to my solicitor is now due. My instinct is to offer them 2 x deposit plus return of deposit plus acceptance of the months' notice as settlement to avoid Court. I fully expect them to dig their heels in, either through ignorance or a continuation of the way that they have behaved since taking over.

Thoughts?

Thanks to those who brought up the importance of the deposit in relation to the Section 21.

jjlandlord

You are not 'due' any 'compensation'. But the landlord is liable to pay a penalty to you.

This is not pedantry. Too many people think that they are 'due compensation' for anything.

spooky69

jjlandlord wrote: »

You are not 'due' any 'compensation'. But the landlord is liable to pay a penalty to you.

This is not pedantry. Too many people think that they are 'due compensation' for anything.

Exactly what I meant and the penalty will compensate me for the year and a bit of harrassment, bullying and rudeness. I think you also knew what I meant.

I am not one of those who feel compensation is due for anything. I do, however, think that they have brought it on themselves with their quite appalling behaviour. If they had been decent and reasonable human beings in the first place I would never have had to look a this. If they had been competent in their jobs then I would not have been presented with this option.

spooky69

Oh, and surely it would be the agents and not the landlord who should pay me, or does the landlord remain liable for their actions (or lack thereof)?

BitterAndTwisted

Your contract is with the landlord with the agent acting as their representative, so IF (big if) a court was to award a penalty it would be the landlord paying it to you.

spooky69

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Your contract is with the landlord with the agent acting as their representative, so IF (big if) a court was to award a penalty it would be the landlord paying it to you.

Why would it be a big if? Based on the significant amount I have now read about this scenario I do not agree with your statement. This is exactly the same scenario as the precedent that has been set, with multiple opportunities over 7 years to correct the mistake and no effort made to do so. They have also either lied or been negligent in telling me that my deposit was protected when it wasn't and only confirmed the facts when I asked for the certificate number.

If the agents force it to Court when it could have been reasonably settled prior then a Court is unlikely to look favourably on this in my experience.

My contract is with the landlord but taking care of the deposit being protected was the duty of the agents. I will take legal advice but I have seen a number of cases where any number of people were named as co-defendants where it was not necessarily clear who should be responsible. I would be inclined to do that and let a Court decide who was ultimately responsible.

spooky69

As an aside, would each year that passes under SPT be considered a new agreement and thus result in 7 claims (2007 to 2013 inclusive) or does SPT mean that the agreement continues on an ongoing basis rather than being effectively renewed for another year each year?

spooky69

I have researched further and think it would be just one claim based on the creation of the periodic tenancy after April 2007 but please feel free to tell me if I am incorrect.

BitterAndTwisted

Courts can impose a penalty of UP TO three times the deposit amount. The particular court you have your case seen in could award you a tenner for your trouble.

Much better to decide what you really want, and negotiate from there. Get out of the property with 100% of your deposit returned? Wait for them to apply to the court for possession only to find their Section 21 Notice is invalid? What?