Deposit not protected - should I sue?

Tinkywinks108

I am in the process of being evicted.

I moved into the property in 2005. The tenancy deposit scheme came into law in 2007. My deposit was not transferred to a deposit protection scheme until 2010.

At the last court hearing, the duty solicitor pointed this out to me. He also said that the landlord/letting agency were required to give me notice that my deposit was protected, every time my tenancy was renewed. My landlord's solicitor is saying that the tenancy agreement includes this information.

Even if the information in the tenancy agreement re the deposit is sufficient, this still means there is a period between 2007 and 2010 where my tenancy was not protected.

Unfortunately, I am not entitled legal aid as I am a student, and my student loan (including my tuition fees that get paid straight to my uni!) is considered income.

I don't know whether it's worth borrowing the money for a solicitor in order to claim compensation from the landlord. Does anyone have any experience of this?

G_M

Tinkywinks108 wrote: »

I am in the process of being evicted.

I moved into the property in 2005. The tenancy deposit scheme came into law in 2007. My deposit was not transferred to a deposit protection scheme until 2010.

At the last court hearing, the duty solicitor pointed this out to me. He also said that the landlord/letting agency were required to give me notice that my deposit was protected, every time my tenancy was renewed.
This is known as the 'Prescribed Information ' and is very specific. Does the wording in the tenancy agreement comply? I doubt it.
My landlord's solicitor is saying that the tenancy agreement includes this information.

Even if the information in the tenancy agreement re the deposit is sufficient, this still means there is a period between 2007 and 2010 where my tenancy was not protected.
Has the tenancy now ended?
Unfortunately, I am not entitled legal aid as I am a student, and my student loan (including my tuition fees that get paid straight to my uni!) is considered income.

I don't know whether it's worth borrowing the money for a solicitor in order to claim compensation from the landlord. Does anyone have any experience of this?

Strictly, claims for a penlty like this have to go to the County Court (more expensive).

However some courts allow such claims to go via the Small Claims Track (cheaper) - contact the court and ask

If your tenancy has now ended, and since the period when the deposit was not registered pre-dates the Localism Act, your claim may be invalid.

However since (I assume) the tenancy ended after the Localism Act, it may be valid. I'm not sure.

Pixie5740

Why are you being evicted?

Does your tenancy agreement include the Prescribed Information?

I would think that at the moment your priority is to find somewhere else to live as sooner or later the LL will get you out.

As for borrowing the money, no I don't think it's a good idea to get yourself into debt over this. If you're only source of income is your student loan then the chances of any half decent lender giving you a loan is slim to none.

Tinkywinks108

G_M wrote: »

Strictly, claims for a penlty like this have to go to the County Court (more expensive).

However some courts allow such claims to go via the Small Claims Track (cheaper) - contact the court and ask

If your tenancy has now ended, and since the period when the deposit was not registered pre-dates the Localism Act, your claim may be invalid.

However since (I assume) the tenancy ended after the Localism Act, it may be valid. I'm not sure.

Thanks for your reply. I've had a look at the 'prescribed information' link and still not sure what it should look like. In any case, I only received one separate document in 2010. I remember at the last court hearing the duty solicitor saying that a mention of it in the tenancy agreement was not enough. My tenancy came to an end last October, I had been served a section 21 a couple of months prior to that, although it's my understanding that the Section 21 is deemed invalid if the 'prescribed information' was not given.

It has so far been dealt with at the County Court, so I assume that's where it'll carry on.

Please can you explain what you mean by "since the period when the deposit was not registered pre-dates the Localism Act"?

Tinkywinks108

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Why are you being evicted?

Does your tenancy agreement include the Prescribed Information?

I would think that at the moment your priority is to find somewhere else to live as sooner or later the LL will get you out.

As for borrowing the money, no I don't think it's a good idea to get yourself into debt over this. If you're only source of income is your student loan then the chances of any half decent lender giving you a loan is slim to none.

I am being evicted simply because the landlord wishes to move into the property.

I am unable to find property to rent in my area as local landlords/letting agencies will not accept unemployed tenants. I am applying for social housing - I am a lone parent with a dependant child as well as meeting all other criteria.

Also, I would be borrowing the money from family, not a lender.

franklee

How often was the tenancy renewed and when? If you signed up for a new tenancy then IIRC the deposit should have been protected and prescribed information served. You'd need the renewals to be after April 2007. Same applies to going into a periodic tenancy but did you do that? Also there seems to be a six year time limit so ideally you'd need the renewal later than that.

Tinkywinks108

franklee wrote: »

How often was the tenancy renewed and when? If you signed up for a new tenancy then IIRC the deposit should have been protected and prescribed information served. You'd need the renewals to be after April 2007. Same applies to going into a periodic tenancy but did you do that? Also there seems to be a six year time limit so ideally you'd need the renewal later than that.

The tenancy (assured shorthold) was renewed yearly in October. Sorry, what does the six year time limit relate to?

jjlandlord

The landlord did not necessarily have to protect the deposit between 2007 and 2010: It depends on whether any tenancies were created during that period.

Even if tenancies were created, the landlord may bot necessarily still be on the hook: It depends on whether one of those tenancies, if any, for which the deposit was not protected, ended after April 2012.

Tinkywinks108

jjlandlord wrote: »

The landlord did not necessarily have to protect the deposit between 2007 and 2010: It depends on whether any tenancies were created during that period.

Even if tenancies were created, the landlord may bot necessarily still be on the hook: It depends on whether one of those tenancies, if any, for which the deposit was not protected, ended after April 2012.

Really? It's the first time I'm hearing anything like this. What significance does April 2012 have?

hostie

The landlord has done the right thing and protected the tenancy so the courts will look favourably upon them.
You presumably have not met your responsibilities as you are being evicted. I think you are wasting your time. There are landlords out there who do not put deposits in protection schemes. Those are the ones that the courts will come down on. You have a good landlord who has met their responsibilities. They may have done it a bit later than they should have, but they have done it.

Pixie5740

The OP said that he/she was evicted because the LL wanted to move back into the property, not because he/she had done anything wrong. That's the problem with the Section 21, tenants don't have to have done anything to warrant the eviction.

LL have been successfully sued for not re-issuing the PI at the start of a new tenancy and not just for 1x the deposit either.

The significance of April 2012 has something to do with the Localism Act 2011 I think but jjlandlord and G_M know more about that than I do.

Maybe your solicitor or Shelter could advise you if it's worth pursuing. The problem is that if you go to court and lose you'll need to pay the LL's court costs as well and if money is tight then it might not be worth the risk.