Section 21 Notice and wanting to buy

spooky69

If a judge determined that they were at fault, which they were, then a tenner would be unlikely. That is the type of award given where you win a case on a technicality that it is felt probably should not have been brought.

A very brief search shows an award of 2 times the deposit plus return of the deposit plus the Section 21 quashed and costs.

As I said earlier, I would have thought that 2 times the deposit plus return of the deposit and my one-month notice accepted would be reasonable.

SerialRenter

It would be one claim.

This does likely mean the S21 is invalid, so if you do get taken to court, you'll have a defence.
To claim the penalty for the landlord's non protection, you'll have to start a new claim against the landlord, not argue it in the landlords claim for possession.

It's the landlord who's ultimately responsible for the protection of the deposit, not the agent.

Note that even though they wish to evict you, you do still need to give one periods notice, or mutually agree to end the agreement.

spooky69

Yes, I fully intend to provide a formal notice of one month to the agent (I have already told them in writing via email but will also do so the old-fashioned way).

I am taking legal advice regarding this prior to taking this further with the agents and landlord. I will update the thread so that anyone else who has to deal with spivs such as these or who finds their deposit has not been protected will have some points of reference.

spooky69

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

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?

Having consulted with two solicitors, it seems the penalty is a minimum of one times the deposit and a maximum of three times the deposit, so a tenner is not possible.

If they are guilty of this, which they are, then the penalty should be BETWEEN one and three times the deposit AND return of the initial deposit.

spooky69

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

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?

Looking further at the legislation, it actually states:

The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/214

Nothing about one times the deposit or 'up to three times'. It appears to be a clear instruction to pay three times the deposit (plus the original deposit unless it is protected, which would be an odd thing to do if I have already served my own notice).

jjlandlord

It is between 1 and 3 times.

Sorry to disappoint you. Gold digging does not come with guarantees.

G_M

spooky69 wrote: »

Looking further at the legislation, it actually states:

The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/214

Nothing about one times the deposit or 'up to three times'. It appears to be a clear instruction to pay three times the deposit (plus the original deposit unless it is protected, which would be an odd thing to do if I have already served my own notice).

That's the Housing Act 2004.

Now read the Localism Act 2010 which amended it.

spooky69

jjlandlord wrote: »

It is between 1 and 3 times.

Sorry to disappoint you. Gold digging does not come with guarantees.

Could you provide your source, as this contradicts what is stated in the legislation. Every decision also appears to have awarded 3 times the deposit.

Your personal comments are inaccurate and unnecessary. This action will be a response to spiv-type behaviour, lies, aggression and generally dodgy behaviour from the moment the new agents took over. They have brought it on themselves and I would not have even looked at this if they had not behaved the way they had and I would not have the opportunity to do this if they had done their jobs correctly.

The Landlord and Tenant Act also allows a penalty of up to £2,500 for their previous refusal to provide the landlord's contact information in writing.

spooky69

G_M wrote: »

That's the Housing Act 2004.

Now read the Localism Act 2010 which amended it.

Super - thanks for a useful bit of information. I'll go and have a look.

antrobus

spooky69 wrote: »

Looking further at the legislation, it actually states:

The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/214

Nothing about one times the deposit or 'up to three times'. It appears to be a clear instruction to pay three times the deposit (plus the original deposit unless it is protected, which would be an odd thing to do if I have already served my own notice).

That's because legislation.gov have yet to apply the changes to the Housing Act 2014 bought in by the Localism Act 2011.

So whilst, for example s214(4) of the HA 2014 does indeed say;

The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

s184(9) of the LA 2011 says for “equal to” substitute “not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than”.

Edit: Somebody beat me to it. But that's what the law now says.