taking a landlord through small claims court

RobMolyneux

Thanks GM.

Originally Posted by RobMolyneux View Post
... landlord has retained £200 of my security deposit without due cause.opinion - yes - opinion, but strongly held one!!

some background:

moved in 12/1/15
moved out 12/12/15
So 11 months and 1 day
* what was the agreement? Was there a fixed term discussed/written/agreed at the start?
* What notice period was discussed/written/agreed at the start?
I served 1 months notice with the intent to vacate on 2nd December, but then due to my daughter getting ill, asked if i could stay on until 12th as that is when i'd paid until anyway. he said fine. While the room was totally cleared on the 12th (meaning 11 months 1 day) I had been out for close to a week.

paid £475 deposit a couple of weeks before taking the room,
* security deposit? holding deposit? what exactly does the receipt say?
No receipt given, he has referred in texts (which i consider to be 'in writing' as "a security".

* if security deposit, AND if this is a tenancy (see above), was the deposit protected? When? Was the PI served? When?
no protection, no issue of any paperwork whatsoever

but on the landlords insistence, did not have a contract.
* of course you had a contract. Verbal. Please clarify the terms.
appreciated, i told him in discussion that i have a contract when he said i didnt, but what i meant is that I haven never signed a written contract.
room was advertised (and still is) as inclusive of all bills at £475 (now advertised at £500).
* you still have the original advert? Exact wording please.
* was anything else said/written or agreed at the start? Were words like "fair usage" used eg in discussions?
I dont have the original advert from the time i took it on, but i have saved a copy of the current advert for use in the claim. from memory it is the same, except the rent value has increased

when i served notice on the room, landlord said "so long as room clean, tidy and undamaged" i will get my deposit back.
* was the notice period (whatever it was) accepted? Anything in writing? text message confirmation that this was acceptable

...
he withheld money ...he claims that money retained is due to excessive utility bills, and considers it necessary to retain against his costs.
* see question above: "fair usage" is a common term in 'all-inclusive' contracts
no written contract, no mention of fair usage in online advert, he raised it via text in October (i think, i still have all texts and will set it all out when i make the claim) but no evidence provided and i know that i have a strong ability to counter anyway, as he hid the master controller - not one us us knew it existed - and when he was round to complain, asked me if i knew how it worked. It had failed/crashed/reset and we had no idea it even existed!

While he had made mention of the excessive bill he received in october,......
* threats of the top-up meter irrelevant as not acted oni wholly agree
* exact words re excessive bill - again: Fair Usage may apply i have his text, but included "some p*ss taking going on" - it wasnt

he has not provided any evidence of bills or justified the £200 payment.
Has he given you anything in writing?
one text saying m3 of gas used in a certain (short, recent) period, nothing evidential

I have told him - in conversation and by text - that i will be willing to review his costs and consider what i think to be a fair offer towards his costs (which considering advertised as bills included, i dont feel obligated to do, but will).
start writing letters, stop conversations and text. this has been less than a week since it happened, so text are the 'quick get something in writing' approach i thought would help me longer term, but of course, i agree

my approach to the claim:

I have via text message and phone call, given him until 5pm this friday to return my money, otherwise i will pursue action.
* start writing letters, stop conversations and text.
* "Letter Before Action" giving 7 days. see below

I have therefore written a letter as 'pre-action' conduct, which i can copy into here for feedback if that's acceptable, and i will issue that letter to him on saturday if payment isnt received.
Ah! About time!i thought going back on my initial statement of "friday or i'll start" meant i really should wait until that has passed

the letter gives him 10 days to pay me the £200, otherwise i will make a formal claim through the courts.
and presumably makes clear, in short, concise statements, why.yes, very clear, and separates the two issues of utility cost and deposit against room condition

thanks.

no, thank you!!

RobMolyneux

RAS wrote: »

What are the HMO rules in your area? Is he registered?

wouldnt have a clue to either question, sorry.

RobMolyneux

G_M wrote: »

Sounds like
a) he does not live there, so you are a tenant but
b) he is trying to make you an Excluded Occupier via the pretensce of the room he retains

as a tenant, the law says
* you should have received an EPC
* and a gas cetificate (if there;s gas)
* and deposit should have been protected

I'd be tempted to add a claim for 3 times the deposit for non-protection to your claim, and let a court decide on the 'tenant/lodger' issue.....

I've just read on this site about the ability to claim 3x deposit. Is it that simple?

also, could the other tenants make the same claim, whether he's ripped them off or not?

RobMolyneux

csgohan4 wrote: »

Looks like tax evasion as well.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/reporting-tax-evasion

report and Karma will come on them as well.

Since you mentioned no tenancy agreement, did you pay him/her in cash ??

You could use it as a carrot that if they didn't protect your deposit you can sue for many more times that.

paid by standing order.

Pixie5740

RobMolyneux wrote: »

I've just read on this site about the ability to claim 3x deposit. Is it that simple?

also, could the other tenants make the same claim, whether he's ripped them off or not?

Yes, it's that simple, providing the landlord should in fact have protected your deposit which I think he should have done (but I'm not a judge). The claim is actually a penalty for the deposit not being protected and since it's down to the tenant to take the naughty landlord to court, the tenant gets to keep the penalty money.

Any tenant in the property could sue him for non-protection. Even tenants who have moved out within the last 6 years I think it is, could sue him regardless of whether or not he made any spurious deductions from their deposits.

RobMolyneux

RAS wrote: »

What are the HMO rules in your area? Is he registered?

I've just searched the register for my area, and there are no properties in my street registered and his name does not appear, nor does that of his girlfriend whos bank the payments were made to.

the property is of 3 or more storeys (4) and while not occupied by 5 or more people during my time (i suppose it was, if his claim he lived there was upheld) it is advertised for 6, and there was a time before i took my room that there were 5. As such it is mandatory for him to register the property irrespective of local rules, based on my quick look at the guidance.

I suppose this goes in my favour, though doubt it has any monetary value to me.

RobMolyneux

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes, it's that simple, providing the landlord should in fact have protected your deposit which I think he should have done (but I'm not a judge). The claim is actually a penalty for the deposit not being protected and since it's down to the tenant to take the naughty landlord to court, the tenant gets to keep the penalty money.

Any tenant in the property could sue him for non-protection. Even tenants who have moved out within the last 6 years I think it is, could sue him regardless of whether or not he made any spurious deductions from their deposits.

thanks again!

re the bold bit: including current tenants living in the property still?

he could be in for a large bill!!

Pixie5740

Yes, they don't need to wait until the tenancy has ended.

RobMolyneux

Just a quick quesiton, addressed to you all...

I am obviously learning here that he has done more wrong that just withhold part of my deposit. Would i be right in thinking that i need to document all of this within my one claim (and my letter to him that I'll issue first) in order to be able to claim against the different parts?

G_M

As I said previously, there are 2 potential problems you face:

1) Beware the 'fair usage' issue.

2) Review the deposit protection issue (if relevant).

1) he might claim this was discussed originally. It is a common term in 'all inclusive' contracts, so very believable. It would then be your word against his. A judge would deide who they believe

2) the deposit penalty can only be claimed by tenants - not lodgers or Excluded Occupiers. On a judge can decide, on the specific circumstances, which you are. He would of course claim he lives in the room he reserves so is a resident LL. But if the advert says otherwise, you'd have a strong case.

It also sounds like this should be a registered HMO. You could
* report to the council
* use the threat of reporting for leverage.

Given the total lack of paperwork, there is also a strong possibility he is avoiding tax. Again, you could
* report to HMRC here
* use the threat of reporting for leverage.