Deposit protection claim after deposit returned and tenancy expired

RedDwarf82

Reading the Housing Act 2004 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4) and the Localism Act 2011 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/part/7/chapter/6/crossheading/tenants-deposits/enacted), it seems clear to me that I can make a claim for my ex-landlord to pay me up to 3 times the amount of the deposit since he didn't protect it (England). And this should be true even if he has already returned the deposit in full, and the tenancy has expired (not sure about the time limit).

But I just found this http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/3vaam-brought-claim-against-ex-landlord-not-protecting.html. Probably it's from before the Localism Act 2011, but still it has made me doubt.
The solicitor says that the claim must be for the deposit... but he doesn't explain why. He seems to talk about Scotland ("HH2006"), so maybe that's why.

Any experience about this?

PS: To keep this simple let's ignore why I would want to make the claim if the deposit has been returned in full.

G_M

RedDwarf82 wrote: »

Reading the Housing Act 2004 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4) and the Localism Act 2011 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/part/7/chapter/6/crossheading/tenants-deposits/enacted), it seems clear to me that I can make a claim for my ex-landlord to pay me up to 3 times the amount of the deposit since he didn't protect it (England). And this should be true even if he has already returned the deposit in full, and the tenancy has expired (not sure about the time limit).

Correct in England.

But I just found this http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/3vaam-brought-claim-against-ex-landlord-not-protecting.html.
Dated 4 years ago. Localism Act was implemented in 2012.

Probably it's from before the Localism Act 2011, but still it has made me doubt.
Correct

The solicitor says that the claim must be for the deposit... but he doesn't explain why. He seems to talk about Scotland ("HH2006"), so maybe that's why.

Are you in Scotland?

Any experience about this?

PS: To keep this simple let's ignore why I would want to make the claim if the deposit has been returned in full.

.........................................................................................

RedDwarf82

G_M wrote: »

The solicitor says that the claim must be for the deposit... but he doesn't explain why. He seems to talk about Scotland ("HH2006"), so maybe that's why.

Are you in Scotland?

No. I am in England.
The thing is that in http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/3vaam-brought-claim-against-ex-landlord-not-protecting.html the guy is asking about HH2004 (so England) and then the solicitor answers with HH2006 (Scotland).

The justanswer link is not the strongest one, even if it's from a solicitor. But since I have never done a claim before and the landlord will surely use a solicitor... you know, it's easy to start getting doubts about the details.

jjlandlord

RedDwarf82 wrote: »

The thing is that in http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/3vaam-brought-claim-against-ex-landlord-not-protecting.html the guy is asking about HH2004 (so England) and then the solicitor answers with HH2006 (Scotland).

If that's in Scotland it just obviously means that everything said is irrelevant to you.

RedDwarf82

jjlandlord wrote: »

If that's in Scotland it just obviously means that everything said is irrelevant to you.

But nowhere it says Scotland explicitly. The only reference is the solicitor saying "HA2006"once.

Anyway, since I am into this. Does somebody know if I should explicitly ask for the case to be handled through the Small Claim track when filling http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n208-eng.pdf ?
I guess it doesn't really matter. Just curious what a judge reading the claim will prefer.

stator

Out of interest, if your deposit was returned in full, why do you want to screw him over? (not that most landlords don't deserve to be screwed over)

bris

You do realise the up to is at the judges discretion and they wouldn't necessarily award 3 time the deposit don't you? You should also take into consideration that the court would only award this if a LL was being unreasonable.


The fact you have your deposit back in full without any complications are more likely to see your claim as frivolous and award costs against you.

jjlandlord

bris wrote: »

The fact you have your deposit back in full without any complications are more likely to see your claim as frivolous and award costs against you.

I don't like tenants out to make free money but this comment is completely baseless and plain incorrect.

fishpond

stator wrote: »

Out of interest, if your deposit was returned in full, why do you want to screw him over? (not that most landlords don't deserve to be screwed over)

Please explain in more detail, with a new post if you like.

RedDwarf82

stator wrote: »

Out of interest, if your deposit was returned in full, why do you want to screw him over? (not that most landlords don't deserve to be screwed over)

Lots (really) of reasons.
But this landlord has lots of other properties. He never protects them. He doesn't even have EPCs for them. He does lots of stuff in an irregular way (and one actually costed me money).

I tried explaining to him what he needed to do. But it's an old guy, who has been doing this for a while, and is always SURE he is right.

And even if the deposit was returned in full... his first position was that he HAD protected it, that it was the DPS responsibility to send me the prescribed information, and that the DPS would give me the money back (the DPS didn't know anything about the deposit). To the day I am still not 100% sure if he was *consciously* lying... but I had to fight for that deposit.

jjlandlord

RedDwarf82 wrote: »

He doesn't even have EPCs for them.

No-one cares about EPCs.