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

FBaby

I am extremely confident because she is clearly in the wrong.

Almost! You are extremely confident because you THINK she is in the wrong. Most people who take someone to court think the same, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Most are right, many are not.

Jerome_TFB

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Sadly it appears you feel the world (or your landlady) owes you.......

Why not use your intelligence and energy to earn money, save a deposit and buy your own house..... then you will not be beholden (or jealous) to anyone!

Not the world. The landlady. Now I asked here to see if someone went through with such a case, but I find myself trying to explain myself to people like you who clearly do not get the point.

theartfullodger said it just right. If there are laws in place, then, let's use it to penalise rogue landlords.

Jerome_TFB

KingS6 wrote: »

Whether the your previous landlords were nice or not should be discounted. Take the emotion out of the issue and look at the facts.

The landlord has failed to do what they were supposed to do under the law. You're entitled to claim, therefore claim. This is a MoneySaving website and the advice is to claim what you're entitled too.

It can also have the knock on effect of driving up standards as that landlord will think twice about not getting the next tenants deposit sorted out pronto.

You've satisfied the requirements as a tenant, now it is time they do the same as a landlord.

Well, I disagree on this one.
It was almost 6 years ago, and I am pretty sure the landlord back then wasn't aware of the change of laws. This came to my attention by accident when I was looking at harassment from landlords (when my landlady was being nasty). So I believe in karma, and she will get it.

That particular landlord was a nice person, a good landlord etc. I do not see the point in penalising him, as to me he ticked all the boxes as what a landlord should be. If I was to have a landlord not protecting my deposit today, I would wait 3 months or so, and then request them to do so. And depending on how good they are as landlords, I would take them to court or not.
Making mistakes, forgetting stuff is human. Being nasty for no reason is also human, but not necessary, and causes stress in other people.

Jerome_TFB

FBaby wrote: »

Almost! You are extremely confident because you THINK she is in the wrong. Most people who take someone to court think the same, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Most are right, many are not.

Fair point.
I base my judgement on facts, though. I will take my chances. Anyway, it might not get to the court action.

G_M

I'm really surprised by some of the comments in this thread.

* The law is clear, and if broken, the OP is entitled to pursue the penalty
* the procedure is not difficult. Yes, there are upfront costs, but if the case is strong and near certain to win, costs will be reclaimed
* the decision of claim,/not claim the penalty is a personal one. There's hasstle factor, there are moral issues, but it's up to the OP
* Expert witnesses are not needed if the facts are clear. Nor are lawyers.
* an alternative option is to request the £100 to be re-paid in return for no court action

However I note you said:

she lied on our tenancy start entering the date as 15/05 instead of 18/04.

So lets be clear on the facts:

* what date did the tenancy actually start?
* what date does the tenancy agreement say the tenancy started?
* what date was the deposit registered?
* is there any possibility the LL might claim she sent the PI (within the 30 days)?

Those are really the key questions which will determine the strength of the case against the LL.

If successfull, it is unlikely the full 3 times deposit will be awarded since
* the deposit was registered, albeit late
* the deposit was returned, albeit following a dispute

I imagine the court would award the minimum penalty - 1 times the deposit, plus costs

Lemonsqueezer78

FBaby wrote: »

Almost! You are extremely confident because you THINK she is in the wrong. Most people who take someone to court think the same, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Most are right, many are not.

Sorry, but what a pointless statement. On the presentation of facts, she is in the wrong and can be sued according to the law, which is pretty clear about her obligations and the penalties if she fails to meet them. If you really do see some flaw in the OPs proposed case, perhaps saying what you think that flaw is would be more useful.

In my opinion the OP should kick her butt in court, make her pay and hopefully she learns her lesson. People like this SHOULD get what is coming to them... and frankly, it doesn't happen nearly enough. Who cares about meaningless labels like "revenge"? The law is entirely on the OPs side. His motivation is irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that many - probably most - people would feel some motivation to take retaliatory action against someone who attempted to screw them over to tune of thousands of pounds, if they had the legal right, means and opportunity to do so - whether they care to admit that to themselves or not. Of course, on balance, not everyone would choose to pursue it in the end, but someone who does has every right to do so. And I'm not ashamed to say, if the LL happens to deserve it - then all the better.

FBaby

On the presentation of facts,

But that's the point, we are going by the facts that Jerome has posted, which are his facts. Yes, by these, it is clear that she has broken the law. The issue is whether the landlord might have different 'FACTS'. It's amazing how FACTS are not so factual when they are challenged in court. Let's face it, it often becomes which FACTS are better evidenced by which party.

I think the reason why many people react to the intended actions by OP is not disputing the legality of the protection of the deposit, but the fact that the tenant should be the one benefiting from the fine when they had suffered no loss themselves.

When the landlord fails to follow the law when it comes to other requirements, I understand that the fines they might incur would not systematically go to the tenant. I believe the failure to provide carbon monoxide/smoke detectors could insue a fine that would go to the council, not the tenant. I find this quite ironic as that failure could have a much worse detrimental impact on the tenant (ie. dying of carbon monoxide poisoning) then losing 1 month deposit.

I personally (and that's my personal opinion) agree with fining the landlord but that fine should not go to the tenant if the tenant got their full deposit back. Their should also be some leniency when the deposit was protected only a couple of days late and the fault rest with the Agency if used, and again, the tenant hasn't suffered any loss from it.

Pixie5740

The tenant is the one who has to take the landlord to court so of course it's the tenant who should get to keep the money.

Protecting a deposit on time isn't new and it's not difficult so why should landlords receive any kind of leniency? Would these same landlords be lenient if the rent was constantly paid a week late. Was this landlord lenient when making deductions from the deposit? Sauce for the goose.

Lemonsqueezer78

FBaby wrote: »

But that's the point, we are going by the facts that Jerome has posted, which are his facts. Yes, by these, it is clear that she has broken the law. The issue is whether the landlord might have different 'FACTS'. It's amazing how FACTS are not so factual when they are challenged in court. Let's face it, it often becomes which FACTS are better evidenced by which party.

If the OP has reason to lie or misrepresent 2 simple dates on his thread (the date his tenancy started and the date his deposit was protected), then fair enough. So to be clear, you are basing your comments on the sole issue of whether the OP has these dates correct. If that is the strength of your argument - that the OP cannot figure out these 2 dates correctly... well, sorry but I'm willing to believe he probably can.

FBaby wrote: »

I think the reason why many people react to the intended actions by OP is not disputing the legality of the protection of the deposit, but the fact that the tenant should be the one benefiting from the fine when they had suffered no loss themselves.

Wait, no. Its not that the dates might not be correct - you are arguing that the OP hasn't actually suffered a loss. Well, sorry but both to my ear - and to the ears of the law - that is just noise. Irrelevant, meaningless noise. The law does not require that the OP has suffered a loss. The only loss the OP is required to have suffered is that HIS money should have been placed in a protected scheme within a timeframe specified by the law. That is all that is required. Nothing more.

FBaby wrote: »

When the landlord fails to follow the law when it comes to other requirements, I understand that the fines they might incur would not systematically go to the tenant. I believe the failure to provide carbon monoxide/smoke detectors could insue a fine that would go to the council, not the tenant. I find this quite ironic as that failure could have a much worse detrimental impact on the tenant (ie. dying of carbon monoxide poisoning) then losing 1 month deposit.

Again, all entirely irrelevant and entirely meaningless here. If you have an issue with the way the law is written - take that up with your MP. No one here cares. It matters not one single iota to the OP in this case. The law is clear, the LL failed in the obligations to protect the TENANTS money in a timely manner and he can therefore be sued for 1-3 times the deposit amount. It is no more complicated or ambiguous than this, no matter how desperately you would wish it to be so.

FBaby wrote: »

I personally (and that's my personal opinion) agree with fining the landlord but that fine should not go to the tenant if the tenant got their full deposit back. Their should also be some leniency when the deposit was protected only a couple of days late and the fault rest with the Agency if used, and again, the tenant hasn't suffered any loss from it.

Then take that up with your MP and leave the OP to do what he is perfectly entitled to do. Surely you can't really feel some personal sense of injustice that the tenant might be given the compensation in this case? Are you the LL in question here? No... so what does it matter to you. And again, how do your personal feelings about the law have any baring whatsoever on the OPs particular issue that would lead you to issue dark warnings to the OP about being too confident about their success. The law is clear and assuming the OP is intelligent enough to be able to confirm two dates, your warnings would seem rather pointless. And for what its worth, there is leniency... as several other posters have highlighted; the landlord is more than likely to be fined only 1x the value of the deposit, rather than 3x. Which seems perfectly fair to me since he broke the law only for a short period of time.

Marvel1

FBaby wrote: »

Their should also be some leniency when the deposit was protected only a couple of days late

They have 30 days as it is.