TDS - letter from tenant

Mahsroh

aneary wrote: »

I just want to know if it was the tenant who posted a few weeks ago.

Big coincidence if not!

Pixie5740

I want to know if the OP is going to stick or twist.

FBaby

Of course it's the same poster.

To answer your question, yes you can sue your LL. They are at fault from the perspective of the law. Whether you can pocket some easy money out of them because they didn't follow the law even though you didn't miss out in anyway from them doing so since you were entitled to use the service of a deposit agency anyway and get back what you were deemed entitled to is your decision.

(My gut feeling is that as more tenants are prepared to use this to their favour, especially considering the number of law firm advertising their services to sue (even on Facebook FGS!!), judges might start getting tired of tenants suing just because a few days were missed, but time will tell).

Interestingly though, and nothing to do with you OP, is whether the agency broke the terms of their contract with the LL if THEY were supposed to protect the deposit themselves OR forward it to the LL within X number of days. In this case, maybe the LL would have a case to sue the agency for the amount they had to fork out to OP.

FBaby

Doh, just realised OP here was the Landlord!!!!

No difference, if you are taken to court, and indeed the other poster is your former tenant and what he posted is correct, look at the terms of the contract with the agency.

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

Of course it's the same poster.

To answer your question, yes you can sue your LL. They are at fault from the perspective of the law. Whether you can pocket some easy money out of them because they didn't follow the law even though you didn't miss out in anyway from them doing so since you were entitled to use the service of a deposit agency anyway and get back what you were deemed entitled to is your decision.

(My gut feeling is that as more tenants are prepared to use this to their favour, especially considering the number of law firm advertising their services to sue (even on Facebook FGS!!), judges might start getting tired of tenants suing just because a few days were missed, but time will tell).

Interestingly though, and nothing to do with you OP, is whether the agency broke the terms of their contract with the LL if THEY were supposed to protect the deposit themselves OR forward it to the LL within X number of days. In this case, maybe the LL would have a case to sue the agency for the amount they had to fork out to OP.

Unfortunately judges are tired of dealing with Parking Eye and cohorts for similar reasons, yet have no discretion in the way the law is enforced.

FBaby

Unfortunately judges are tired of dealing with Parking Eye and cohorts for similar reasons, yet have no discretion in the way the law is enforced.

Yes, I know deep inside that you're right. So is the vexation claim the only way to deviate from it, or is it a fallacy that this can be used as a defense leading to a non award?

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

Yes, I know deep inside that you're right. So is the vexation claim the only way to deviate from it, or is it a fallacy that this can be used as a defense leading to a non award?

In such circumstances I can't see a court agreeing the claim is vexatious in the legal sense - (denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.)

FBaby

I find it totally ludicrous that a LL could find themselves having to pay say £1500 (one month rent in the SE, assuming that the judge would only apply a penalty of x1) for having protected the deposit on day 31, even if the tenant got the full deposit back, yet a lodger who gave that same deposit but whose LL refused to give back would have no choice but to take them to court with no penalty awarded for having to do so.

This is a perfect instance why it is hard sometimes to hold respect and trust with the legal system.

anselld

FBaby wrote: »

I find it totally ludicrous that a LL could find themselves having to pay say £1500 (one month rent in the SE, assuming that the judge would only apply a penalty of x1) for having protected the deposit on day 31, even if the tenant got the full deposit back, yet a lodger who gave that same deposit but whose LL refused to give back would have no choice but to take them to court with no penalty awarded for having to do so.

This is a perfect instance why it is hard sometimes to hold respect and trust with the legal system.

A day late is still late. As mentioned earlier in the thread 14 days was stretched to 30 in the legislation on the understanding there would be zero tollerance with the new deadline.

Mahsroh

FBaby wrote: »

Interestingly though, and nothing to do with you OP, is whether the agency broke the terms of their contract with the LL if THEY were supposed to protect the deposit themselves OR forward it to the LL within X number of days. In this case, maybe the LL would have a case to sue the agency for the amount they had to fork out to OP.

The agreements between LL and agents are normally the agents standard terms so more often than not you'll probably find a cleverly worded clause that essentially says "we (the agency) take no responsibility for our own screw ups!"