Tenancy Deposit Protection Penalty Claim

Pixie5740

With a joint tenancy and deposit protection there's usually a lead tenant nominated and they are the ones served the PI and who receive the emails from the deposit scheme. Are your daughter and her friends absolutely positive that the lead tenant never received anything?

No need to assume agginal and G_M are correct, they are correct about the fees.

Guest101

You need 2 different claims.


Small Claims track for the deposit - yes costs are recoverable if you follow pre action protocol


You need county court for the penalty (I forget which form it is), again costs are recoverable.


2 points:
1: is the deposit actually due back, or was the place trashed?
2: Have you contacted the LL (that's step one of pre action)


You can file both claims under county court, but I'd recommend doing it separately, as there are two distinct cases.

bunkersoldier

FBaby wrote: »

Before you even go that route, are you absolutely certain it wasn't sent? Was your daughter the lead tenant? If not, it might very well have been sent to one of the other tenants, and being a student didn't pay much attention to it, or even got rid of it.

Might be worth being 100% certain before taking the landlord to court. Also not sure about the argument that it caused them to fail the deadline by which to challenge as it is all explained very well on the deposit scheme website.

Thank you. Yes, we are positive and as a relevant person I also should have received the prescribed information, but did not.

They were novice tenants, so didn’t even know about deposit protection. However, Ayannuga v Swindells [2012] EWCA Civ 1789, stated that it is not the tenant’s responsibility to go hunting around for scheme information. The judge said it cannot be assumed that (a) a tenant will have access to the internet, (b) that a website is working and (c) as the landlord must personally vouch that the information is correct, this can only be done by supplying the information directly.

bunkersoldier

Guest101 wrote: »

You need 2 different claims.


Small Claims track for the deposit - yes costs are recoverable if you follow pre action protocol


You need county court for the penalty (I forget which form it is), again costs are recoverable.


2 points:
1: is the deposit actually due back, or was the place trashed?
2: Have you contacted the LL (that's step one of pre action)


You can file both claims under county court, but I'd recommend doing it separately, as there are two distinct cases.

Thank you, but apparently only a single claim should be made. Claims under Section 214 Housing Act 2004 for both the return of the deposit and the penalty are made by a single Part 8 claim using form N208.

If the deposit had been protected in accordance with the statutory requirements, then any claim for its return would be a Part 7 claim using form N1.

The place was left clean (we have photographs). There may have been some justification in retaining some of the deposit, but as the landlord has refused to provide copies of the check-in/check-out reports and invoices, we will only know if they are produced in court. They charged for a full annual clean and also charged for roof/guttering damage, which the students did not cause.

Guest101

bunkersoldier wrote: »

Thank you, but apparently only a single claim should be made. Claims under Section 214 Housing Act 2004 for both the return of the deposit and the penalty are made by a single Part 8 claim using form N208.

If the deposit had been protected in accordance with the statutory requirements, then any claim for its return would be a Part 7 claim using form N1.

The place was left clean (we have photographs). There may have been some justification in retaining some of the deposit, but as the landlord has refused to provide copies of the check-in/check-out reports and invoices, we will only know if they are produced in court. They charged for a full annual clean and also charged for roof/guttering damage, which the students did not cause.

I'm not convinced by that. Why would a part 7 claim be necessary when it is a straight forward small claims track.


Just to be clear the LL is not obliged to provide any receipts, nor is he or she obliged to carry out any of the work.


Surely the tenants had a copy of the check-in report?

FBaby

They were novice tenants, so didn’t even know about deposit protection. However, Ayannuga v Swindells [2012] EWCA Civ 1789, stated that it is not the tenant’s responsibility to go hunting around for scheme information. The judge said it cannot be assumed that (a) a tenant will have access to the internet, (b) that a website is working and (c) as the landlord must personally vouch that the information is correct, this can only be done by supplying the information directly.

I don't dispute that, I just don't see how you can provide assurance that had it been provided, the tenants would definitely have read it and definitely been aware of the deadline as a result, ie. it's the cause and effect that I am not makes a case.

Saying that, it might be irrelevant anyway as having failed to provide the prescribed info might be sufficient to win the case.

TBagpuss

what is your daughter's current financial position? She may be entitled to pay a reduced fee anyway - she can check how much she would need to pay using the calculator on the court website.
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=4397

bunkersoldier

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm not convinced by that. Why would a part 7 claim be necessary when it is a straight forward small claims track.

A small claim is made under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Guest101 wrote: »

Just to be clear the LL is not obliged to provide any receipts, nor is he or she obliged to carry out any of the work.

If he has receipts, the LL is obliged to provide them as part of the pre-action protocol you mentioned. If they don't exist, he would still need to provide evidence to justify any claim against the deposit.

Guest101 wrote: »

Surely the tenants had a copy of the check-in report?

No, but wouldn't be much use without the check-out report anyway.

bunkersoldier

FBaby wrote: »

I don't dispute that, I just don't see how you can provide assurance that had it been provided, the tenants would definitely have read it and definitely been aware of the deadline as a result, ie. it's the cause and effect that I am not makes a case.

Saying that, it might be irrelevant anyway as having failed to provide the prescribed info might be sufficient to win the case.

Yes, probably irrelevant, although I am confident that the court would not need any such assurance, otherwise there would be no point in having the statutory regulations if it was assumed that tenants won't bother reading the prescribed information anyway!

Guest101

bunkersoldier wrote: »

A small claim is made under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.


If he has receipts, the LL is obliged to provide them as part of the pre-action protocol you mentioned. If they don't exist, he would still need to provide evidence to justify any claim against the deposit.

No, but wouldn't be much use without the check-out report anyway.

What I meant sorry, was why would it be necessary when there's ADR available?