We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

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

1…5681011…15

Comments

  • Jerome_TFB
    Jerome_TFB Posts: 68 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 10 Posts
    Lemonsqueezer78 wrote: »
    Arguably he's exacting "karma", so I'm sure it'll be good. I don't like people who abuse the system either. For example a legal system.... that says you need to put someone's deposit in a scheme, within 30 days. That kind of system. When those systems get abused, I find that "appalling".
    exactly.
    I am thinking that it is Karma getting back her way too. I do wrong at times, I get crap for it, karma gets me back too sometimes. That's life!
    ;)
    :beer:
  • Jerome_TFB
    Jerome_TFB Posts: 68 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 10 Posts
    anselld wrote: »
    It was actually. It was a Poll asking "Should I take this further?". You just didn't like the majority answer!
    :rotfl:
    Funny you point to the poll, I forgot about it!
    Oh, yes, that 45% yes 55% no...
    Hum, reminds me of Brexit... It's hardly a clear cut answer...
    Fair enough, opinion can be expressed in the poll, but my actual request was "has someone gone through this, any advice?"
    Anyway...
  • SnooksNJ
    SnooksNJ Posts: 829 Forumite
    Jerome_TFB wrote: »
    18/04


    But to me, it is not a question of money. should I get 1/5 the deposit or whatever, I do not care. It is more about teaching her a lesson, and showing her that she shouldn't mess with people.
    Great, what charity are you going to donate the money too?
  • Jerome_TFB
    Jerome_TFB Posts: 68 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 10 Posts
    SnooksNJ wrote: »
    Great, what charity are you going to donate the money too?
    I worked for a charity, and that showed me how money is wasted.
    That said I will give some of it to Shelter as they were very helpful and supportive.
  • SnooksNJ
    SnooksNJ Posts: 829 Forumite
    Jerome_TFB wrote: »
    I worked for a charity, and that showed me how money is wasted.
    That said I will give some of it to Shelter as they were very helpful and supportive.
    Some of it? So it is about the money.
  • Pixie5740
    Pixie5740 Posts: 14,515 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Eighth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    SnooksNJ wrote: »
    Some of it? So it is about the money.

    Does it matter whether it's about the money or not? The landlord could easily have protected herself from being sued by protecting the deposit on time and being a bit nicer to the OP.
  • SnooksNJ
    SnooksNJ Posts: 829 Forumite
    Pixie5740 wrote: »
    Does it matter whether it's about the money or not? The landlord could easily have protected herself from being sued by protecting the deposit on time and being a bit nicer to the OP.
    The OP brought up that it's not a question of money so obviously it does matter. The reality is it's some easy money so at least be honest about it.
  • Jerome_TFB
    Jerome_TFB Posts: 68 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 10 Posts
    edited 12 September 2016 at 10:49AM
    SnooksNJ wrote: »
    The OP brought up that it's not a question of money so obviously it does matter. The reality is it's some easy money so at least be honest about it.
    Oh, I'm sorry for needing money. Yes this is an opportunity to get compensation, and I will take it. Not to milk an innocent LL or abusing the system, but just to penalise a bad LL.

    This whole situation cost me financially and emotionally for my partner and myself: unecessary and unprovoked stress and sleepless nights. All this because of some nasty person.
    So yeah, if they can caugh up for it, well I am not gonna feel guilty about it.

    It is also about right or wrong. I have explained it above, and will not reply to further judgements from other people.
    LL broke the law, I'm suing for it. Full stop. You can judge me all you want, I frankly do not mind or care. I just don't quite get the value of your contribution in this topic, or how helpful it would be to an OP in need.

    Some OPs get "abused" by bad LL. This particular topic could be useful to future them who end up in my situation.
    It is difficult right now to find info on this matter, as too few tenants know about it. So I hope that this topic will help other OPs.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    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.

    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.



    It's not a fine, it's punitive damages.
  • Miss_Samantha
    Miss_Samantha Posts: 1,197 Forumite
    Guest101 wrote: »
    It's not a fine, it's punitive damages.

    No, it's a penalty.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture