Are there any known cases of suing LL for 3 x the amount of an unprotected deposit?

Gonzo1987

theartfullodger wrote: »

If the property was in a trust surely the trust was named as the landlord: rather than any human.

no the landlord was named,but in conversation it was mentioned the property was in a trust


paying land registry might be the next thing to do.

Gonzo1987

Had a quick search on the land registry this morning, it comes up with my property twice, under freehold and leasehold? Obviously I can order both, but how will I know which is correct?

stator

Gonzo1987 wrote: »

Had a quick search on the land registry this morning, it comes up with my property twice, under freehold and leasehold? Obviously I can order both, but how will I know which is correct?

Both are 'correct'. One person owns the freehold and another person owns the leasehold, they might both be the same person but might not. In any case it's probably the leaseholder who is your landlord.

Gonzo1987

ah my LL will be both then as they own the other property in the building too.

Thanks.

agrinnall

Gonzo1987 wrote: »

ah my LL will be both then as they own the other property in the building too.

Thanks.

Well, possibly, perhaps even probably. But there's certainly a chance that a developer bought the property, sold the leasehold of the flats to your LL but retained the freehold. I'd order the leasehold entry.

G_M

It's a flat. Your landlord owns the leasehold.

There is a seperate lease for the other flat.

There is a freehold for the whol building.

Each of these could be owned by different people, or any combination of people.

You need the leaehold for your flat.

Gonzo1987

G_M wrote: »

It's a flat. Your landlord owns the leasehold.

There is a seperate lease for the other flat.

There is a freehold for the whol building.

Each of these could be owned by different people, or any combination of people.

You need the leaehold for your flat.

While it is a flat, it's a flat about the shop, but the LL definitely owns the whole building. It's been a flat and a shop since the 1900s Its not 1 and 1a the whole property comes under 1.

theartfullodger

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not foolproof but you can pay £3 to the land registry to find out who owns the property, the LL or a trust.

Agreed, but that does not stop someone/something other than owner being the landlord: Can & is done, usually legally...

derbyshirenick

I cannot tell you what to do. I had an unprotected deposit (original letting agent was using deposits for cashflow, then went bust, second agent took on let without a deposit).

Long story short, the second agent spent 18 months avoiding the subject even after letter after letter notifying them that one needs providing and protecting.

Anyway.... A stern letter laying out our legal entitlements with regards to pursuing 3x the deposit, our original one was returned quite promptly in full*.

If you are reasonable and just want your deposit back explaining "this is the way we can go... but it all goes away with a full deposit refund" will more than likely do the trick.

Now.. if the landlord digs their heels in... go for it.

Gonzo1987

thanks Denbyshirenick - that was really helpful. I am hoping a letter pointing out the LL's legal obligation to protect the deposit was not met, therefore to avoid any legal action if they return out deposit in full then we will leave it at that.

However, my LL tends to forget how to be a reasonable human being, so I fear is going to get very defensive, try to push it all back on me and become very difficult to deal with.

Although, I am now quite concerned about this whole tax issue, because I've only heard once the LL mention the property being in a trust, I have seen no proof of this and tax and them being a NRL has not come up in conversation. IF I were to go through the courts am I laying myself open to having to find huge sums of money to cover the tax I didn't deduct?