Deposit Unprotected - Claim in Court

SuperSaver123

Comms69 wrote: »

Because they may have claimed it via MCOL; which is the wrong procedure.


Or, as the OP has said, the tenant was infact a lodger.

Sorry for a stupid question but if the application is in handwriting, it wouldn't be a MCOL?

I probably made a few people laugh in here.

I think they are proctected as tenants not loedgers as when they moved in, neither my ex nor me lived there.

AdrianC

SuperSaver123 wrote: »

I have tried. I have offered them even more as 'a support in their moving process' - they do not want to move!

There y'go, then.


If they don't want to move, you cannot make them. Your s21 is invalid. You will need to find an s8 mandatory ground if you want to issue valid notice.

SuperSaver123

G_M wrote: »

It seems likely they were tenants (at least later on), but this has not been 100% confirmed. Given how critical that is to the OP's liability, it needs establishing beyond doubt. Please answer all Qs in full.

* when occupant moved in, was the landlord in occupation too? So 'lodger' and landlord shared the property? What was the date?when they moved in (to a room), my ex did not live there. He moved in later on.
* Was a deposit taken at that point? Date? Yes in April 2015. New Room rental agreement was signed in October 2015
* Did the ex/LL move out leaving the 'lodger' with exclusive occupation? When/date? In June last year. No exclusive occupation. They just have exclusive use of one room. One other room is let out. The remaining 3 are empty, I am preparing them for myself as I want to move into that house.
* when property Title was transferred, who was in occupation? Date? Transferred last week. Just these 2 tenants in one room and one more tenant in a different room.
* Was a S21 served? Date? I understand I can serve it now even though the cheque has not been cleared?
* was a S8 served? Date? (if not, why not?) I understand I stand no chance in S8 as for example I did not protect a deposit. I am a little lost in the procedure as you can tell. This was my first rental property.

Why would or should they request their deposit back before you serve a S21 or before the tenancy ends? Makes no sense.

Your best defense would be to argue that at the time the deposit was paid they were lodgers, not tenants, thus protecting the deposit was not required.

Even if they later became tenants, meaning at that point the deposit should have been protected, this history would probably mitigate, soe the court would likely not award the maximum 3 x penalty but a lesser amount.

The date of the refund cheque you sent might also be relevant.

Unfortunately I only gave them the cheque after the court papers were served.

SuperSaver123

AdrianC wrote: »

There y'go, then.


If they don't want to move, you cannot make them. Your s21 is invalid. You will need to find an s8 mandatory ground if you want to issue valid notice.

Why is my Section 21 not valid?

If the deposit is returned, I have GSC, served them the EPC and guide to rent, why would Section 21 be not valid?

I understand that S8 is difficult to win in court by LL?

SuperSaver123

Comms69 wrote: »

Your guesses, again, are irrelevant.


You return their deposit. You issue s.21 (assuming you can - you STILL haven't answered that ), get possession order. If they take you to court for the penalty, you counterclaim the rent.


(are you sure the rent is owed? ie it wasn't paid to your ex?)

My ex would be in breach of the divorce order if he accepted any rents so officially no, they couldn't have paid him the rent money. And I think it is the other way round.

I offered them more than 3 times value of the deposit. They were not interested at all.

Comms69

SuperSaver123 wrote: »

My ex would be in breach of the divorce order if he accepted any rents so officially no, they couldn't have paid him the rent money. - no that's not a logical argument. Your ex would be in breach of the law if they murdered someone; but that is in no way reflected on your tenants. Check. And I think it is the other way round. - what do you mean other way round?

I offered them more than 3 times value of the deposit. They were not interested at all.

Well I hope you offered this in writing. So the court can aks them exactly why they're wasting the courts time

SuperSaver123

Comms69 wrote: »

Well I hope you offered this in writing. So the court can aks them exactly why they're wasting the courts time

The offer was not in writing and it was for them moving. 5 times the value of the deposit. Rent arrears forgiven. They were not interested.

AdrianC

SuperSaver123 wrote: »

Why is my Section 21 not valid?

If the deposit is returned, I have GSC, served them the EPC and guide to rent, why would Section 21 be not valid?

If you feel so confident, then apply to the court for possession.

I understand that S8 is difficult to win in court by LL?

If you have one of the mandatory grounds on your side, then... well, there's a clue in "mandatory". One of the discretionary grounds is not much different to s21.

Comms69

SuperSaver123 wrote: »

The offer was not in writing and it was for them moving. 5 times the value of the deposit. Rent arrears forgiven. They were not interested.

Bizarre. Sorry I cant really comment further; but who turns down what I expect is 5 months rent + however many months in forgiven debt

theartfullodger

AdrianC wrote: »

.................

If you have one of the mandatory grounds on your side, then... well, there's a clue in "mandatory". One of the discretionary grounds is not much different to s21.

? Eh? What do you mean regarding s21 & s8 discretionary grounds, please?

NB S8 for rent arrears, even g8, is easily defended/delayed over repair issues (including those landlord is confident are spurious). And costs can awarded against landlord, can be expensive.