Attachment of Earnings, Is it worth it ?

Comms69

losgiganteskid wrote: »

If the OP is having great difficulty trying to recover the amount of £1675 what hope has she of trying to recover 3x that amount ?

Furthermore by definition a "landlord" is the owner of a property or land which is rented. Clearly the "landlord" was not a landlord in this case as he didn't own the property but merely sub letting it so I guess the x3 deposit reclaim together with the failure to protect the deposit did not apply in this scenario

That's just a load of rubbish.

ReadingTim

JandyA wrote: »

I have got his employment details etc , but wondered if anyone had any success with obtaining any payback from one of these?

Depends on if he's an employee, or self-employed/ a contractor, which, given it's TV, plus his landlording, might be more believable.

AOE's don't work for the self-employed, so the idea might be a non-starter anyway, but personally, galling as it may be, your time, energy and money might be better spent elsewhere and letting this one go...

losgiganteskid

Are we saying then that a tenant who rents a property then sub lets it becomes a landlord himself ?

00ec25

losgiganteskid wrote: »

If the OP is having great difficulty trying to recover the amount of £1675 what hope has she of trying to recover 3x that amount ?

it would of course cost a set of court fees but if OP is reasonably confident of tracking down the LL and knowing where he works then an attachment order would (should) get some money flowing.

The size of the award payment will however be at the discretion of the judge and may be "disappointing" eg: £10 per month

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Furthermore by definition a "landlord" is the owner of a property or land which is rented. Clearly the "landlord" was not a landlord in this case as he didn't own the property but merely sub letting it so I guess the x3 deposit reclaim together with the failure to protect the deposit did not apply in this scenario

complete rubbish

Pixie5740

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Are we saying then that a tenant who rents a property then sub lets it becomes a landlord himself ?

If by we you mean law then yes that is what the law says.

Going by your definition any leaseholder of a flat who then sublets would not be a landlord and that’s just plain wrong.

Lokolo

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Are we saying then that a tenant who rents a property then sub lets it becomes a landlord himself ?

Of course. If you let out a property, either because you own a property or you sub let it out, you are a landlord.

00ec25

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Are we saying then that a tenant who rents a property then sub lets it becomes a landlord himself ?

a landlord is, by definition, the person who charges rent to someone else who occupies a room or building over which the LL has the right to allow someone to live there

so yes, a tenant who sub let a property from their own LL does themselves become a LL in their own right, with all the obligations that entails regarding deposits they take from their tenant

JandyA

Thanks for the engagement on my thread everyone.

The debtor is employed full time as a producer for a large television corporation (hint hint).

AOE is sounding like the best option so far...

JandyA

PS I signed a lease agreement etc which detailed him as the LL ...... even though he was technically the tenant...

RE: AOE, I'm hoping that his employer will notify him when they receive the court order and he will be so embarrassed that he just pays up and gets it over with...

G_M

JandyA wrote: »

PS I signed a lease agreement etc which detailed him as the LL ...... even though he was technically the tenant...

Wrong.

So far as your contract with him is concerned, he was (both technically, legally, and practically) the landlord. You were the tenant.

Whether he was also the tenant of a separate contract is neither here nor there.