Deposit not protected - should I sue?

jjlandlord

Tinkywinks108 wrote: »

What significance does April 2012 have?

That's the Localism Act mentioned previously.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That's the problem with the Section 21, tenants don't have to have done anything to warrant the eviction.

I wouldn't say it's a 'problem', but that's another debate.

Tinkywinks108

hostie wrote: »

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.

That's two very big assumptions! I have been a good tenant thank you, never been a day late with my rent in 9 years despite the fact my landlord has not tended to much needed repairs.

Tinkywinks108

Pixie5740 wrote: »

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.

I can't get through to Shelter's helplines and their next available appointment is too late (after the court hearing). Seeing a solicitor would be a big financial commitment for me. This eviction is going to be very expensive for me as it is (moving and storage costs whilst in temporary accommodation, travelling long distance to take my son to school, eating out as no kitchen in b&b etc). And I just know I'm going to lose my deposit because my LL is very tight and won't admit to things like verbally agreeing that I could replace the sofa with my own one. (And yes, I was daft enough to not get anything in writing).

At the end of the day, it's down to the judges discretion. Feels like a big gamble to me so will probably knock it on the head.

Pixie5740

The deposit itself is another matter. You might not need to kiss it goodbye. You have lived there for 9 years so the LL would have had at least 9 years (more if the sofa wasn't new when you moved in) use out that sofa so even if he was awarded something for the sofa it would be peanuts. 9 years of wear and tear is a lot.

Tinkywinks108

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The deposit itself is another matter. You might not need to kiss it goodbye. You have lived there for 9 years so the LL would have had at least 9 years (more if the sofa wasn't new when you moved in) use out that sofa so even if he was awarded something for the sofa it would be peanuts. 9 years of wear and tear is a lot.

Thanks for your help Pixie5740. Everything was indeed second hand when I moved in so that is helpful to know.

dodger1

Deposit not protected - should I sue?

For me no I wouldn't as long as the deposit was returned in full. If the LL had been really bad in other ways then maybe but as you've stayed there for nine years things can't have been too bad.