Late deposit protection of my deposit by my landlady... Small Claims Court?

Jerome_TFB

Oh, and just one last point:
The company that does the leg work is sending extra letters etc to the LL, but also the Estate agent which is apparently jointly liable. I did not know this, and I couldn't find anything on internet about this.
This comfort me into thinking that they are doing a more thorough job than what I would have done, therefore potentially increasing my chances of result.
Anyway, speak soon!

EachPenny

Jerome_TFB wrote: »

Again, I disagree. A bad LL will always be a bad LL. Only things like these will make them up their game.
Since then, I have moved to a different place, and the LL is great. Really nice chap, very responsive, perfect. To be honest, I do not know whether he protected the deposit on time (I know it has been protected), and I will not even dream of suing him for a few days or whatever. Because he is great, and doesn't deserve any trouble. He does his job well, so that is it.

I think you missed the point I was making. This isn't about your landlord's future behaviour, it is about the impact on the rental market as a whole. In just the same way companies of this type caused car insurance premiums to go through the roof, the risk of having claims like yours will cause landlords and letting agents to up what they charge tenants in order to recoup their losses.

I'm not disputing your right to make a claim, but if you really are doing it for the little people then bear in mind there are often unintended consequences of our actions.

Jerome_TFB wrote: »

So I do not think I "clog" the system with petty claims. I feel like I am helping future tenants, and giving back to that nasty LL a piece of her own medicine. And she might even contribute towards the deposit of my future home...

I didn't use the word "clog". Out of interest, do you know for sure whether she is still a landlord?

Whenever you go to court you take a chance, even when you have a good case on paper you can still lose. Let's hope for your claims company's insurer's sake that the judge doesn't decide de minimis should be the overriding consideration in this case.

Jerome_TFB

EachPenny wrote: »

I think you missed the point I was making. This isn't about your landlord's future behaviour, it is about the impact on the rental market as a whole. In just the same way companies of this type caused car insurance premiums to go through the roof, the risk of having claims like yours will cause landlords and letting agents to up what they charge tenants in order to recoup their losses.

I'm not disputing your right to make a claim, but if you really are doing it for the little people then bear in mind there are often unintended consequences of our actions.

I did get your point, I just do not agree with it.
At the end of the day it is about law. LL have things to do, protecting the deposit is one of them. It is simple enough, and clearly laid out: it is law. As a tenant, we have to pay the rent on time, and look after the property. If you don't, you get into trouble.

How me pointing out one of the (thankfully) few LL not following the rule going to impact rent costs?
I think it is more due to tenants who destroy places, do not pay rent etc.
Estates agents will keep on robbing LL (and tenants) of as much as they can.

EachPenny wrote: »

I didn't use the word "clog". Out of interest, do you know for sure whether she is still a landlord?

you did not say "clog", true, but it sounded a bit like this. How making the law respected "not using the legal system in the way it should be"? I shall remind you that she never gave the prescribed info.

As for your question, she did get another tenant after me for sure, but at this very minute, I do not know. I assume so. She also had tenants before me (they also decided not to share their address with her interestingly).
At the end of the day, even if she is not a LL at this time, she remains liable for her failings.

EachPenny wrote: »

Whenever you go to court you take a chance, even when you have a good case on paper you can still lose. Let's hope for your claims company's insurer's sake that the judge doesn't decide de minimis should be the overriding consideration in this case.

I am aware of this. That's where the "no fee" will happen.
That said, if the company decided to take my case on board, that means that I have a case. They would not take risks. Time will tell...

bowlhead99

Jerome_TFB wrote: »

I am aware of this. That's where the "no fee" will happen.
That said, if the company decided to take my case on board, that means that I have a case. They would not take risks. Time will tell...

They would not take risks? Their whole business model is taking risks to make money for old rope on some cases with enough volume that they can afford to make losses (which they have often insured against) on other cases - which have a reasonable risk of failure but might win if they get lucky so they'll take them on and hope they add to the volume of money for old rope rather than wasted effort for no money.

FBaby

The company that does the leg work is sending extra letters etc to the LL, but also the Estate agent which is apparently jointly liable

Not they are not and if that's the advice you've been given, then I would re-read the small prints because they clearly don't know what they are doing. Yes, it could be that the EA failed to act in accordance with the contract between the LL and them, in which case, maybe the LL would have a case to sue them for the amount you sued him, but this has nothing to do with you. From your perspective, it's your LL who failed to protect your deposit on time.

If they are wrong about this, I wonder what else they are wrong about, and the fact the other company wouldn't take it on is a bit of a red herring.

Jerome_TFB

bowlhead99 wrote: »

They would not take risks? Their whole business model is taking risks to make money for old rope on some cases with enough volume that they can afford to make losses (which they have often insured against) on other cases - which have a reasonable risk of failure but might win if they get lucky so they'll take them on and hope they add to the volume of money for old rope rather than wasted effort for no money.

I disagree (again, sorry). The deposit claims are so black & white, that it is a straight forward process. You either sticked to the rules or you didn't. If you didn't you get a penalty.
The only variable is how much that penalty will be, decided by the judge. So in that sense, the company can see before they start anything whether they will be successful or not.
I believe that on the deposit issues, it is a very low risk matter for them. They ask for your tenancy agreement , and payment dates. it is simple.

Jerome_TFB

FBaby wrote: »

Not they are not and if that's the advice you've been given, then I would re-read the small prints because they clearly don't know what they are doing. Yes, it could be that the EA failed to act in accordance with the contract between the LL and them, in which case, maybe the LL would have a case to sue them for the amount you sued him, but this has nothing to do with you. From your perspective, it's your LL who failed to protect your deposit on time.

If they are wrong about this, I wonder what else they are wrong about, and the fact the other company wouldn't take it on is a bit of a red herring.

Again time will tell. I will let you know the outcome.
I guess it is pointless discussing or arguing in the meantime.
Discussing with them, I felt that they were knowledgeable, and in control of things.

SwanJon

EachPenny wrote: »

the risk of having claims like yours will cause landlords and letting agents to up what they charge tenants in order to recoup their losses.

What losses?
If they stick to the simple rules to manage the tenant's money this can't happen.
Or do you mean they see the deposit and spurious claims on it as their profit and the inability to do this as a loss. The sheer volume of LLs doing this is the reason the law was made. Looks like its come full circle.

EachPenny

Jerome_TFB wrote: »

I disagree (again, sorry). The deposit claims are so black & white, that it is a straight forward process. You either sticked to the rules or you didn't. If you didn't you get a penalty.
The only variable is how much that penalty will be, decided by the judge. So in that sense, the company can see before they start anything whether they will be successful or not.
I believe that on the deposit issues, it is a very low risk matter for them. They ask for your tenancy agreement , and payment dates. it is simple.

Although it appears you don't stand to lose anything personally, other people reading this may take this as good advice and put themselves at risk. Therefore it is important to fully understand legal processes before embarking on action.

You imply it will be a slam-dunk case. Maybe it will be, but there is nothing certain when you go to court. As you say, the judge gets to decide the level of 'penalty' appropriate for the circumstances. The judge has discretion to set the level at £1. Which would mean you walk out of court with 80p, after the claims company have taken their cut. Hopefully that will be sufficient to pay your car parking costs if you decide to attend court in person.

Please don't mislead people by making them think going to court is ever 'simple'.

Pixie5740

EachPenny wrote: »

Although it appears you don't stand to lose anything personally, other people reading this may take this as good advice and put themselves at risk. Therefore it is important to fully understand legal processes before embarking on action.

You imply it will be a slam-dunk case. Maybe it will be, but there is nothing certain when you go to court. As you say, the judge gets to decide the level of 'penalty' appropriate for the circumstances. The judge has discretion to set the level at £1. Which would mean you walk out of court with 80p, after the claims company have taken their cut. Hopefully that will be sufficient to pay your car parking costs if you decide to attend court in person.

Please don't mislead people by making them think going to court is ever 'simple'.

The judge does not have the discretion to set the penalty at £1. The law clearly states that the penalty must be 1-3 times the value of the deposit.

Specifically when awarding a penalty for breach of the Section 213 Housing Act 2004....

The court must . . . order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money [not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than] three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.