Tenancy Deposit - Multiple breaches/claims

FBaby

Landlord have 30 days to protect it, that's being generous

I'm not disputing the law but those who see it as money grabbing opportunity. I do feel that 10 days missed should only trigger 10 days rent equivalent but fair e ough to make 1 month.

Hoping for 3 times when no harm has a tuslly been done, let alone 3 x 3 as OP is hoping is just indeed pure greed. Sadly, that represents very much what our society is becoming. Today its a landlord who is at the receiving end of it, tomorrow it will be a tenant who will get treated like crap by a greedy landlord.

FBaby

Your post is unnecessarily rude.

It is not rude at all. It is pointing to why there is a growing tension between landlords and tenants in this country because people care more about cash in their pocket than acting reasonably and building respect for each other.

parkrunner

FBaby wrote: »

It is not rude at all. It is pointing to why there is a growing tension between landlords and tenants in this country because people care more about cash in their pocket than acting reasonably and building respect for each other.

Agreed not rude. It's also not just about problems between tenants and landlords, it's simply more of the "how much can I make out of this minor problem" syndrome slowly enveloping us.

Josh1u

It is rude because it assumed that I am grabbing money. If that poster knew the situations that have occurred in my tenancy, they would no doubt change their tune. But, as many people do in this country, they jumped to a conclusion about my character.

In fact, I am claiming against the letting agents, not the landlord. I am doing so because letting agents share the responsibility, or at least in my tenancy contract it states they do, and they should know that to lodge a deposit after 30 days is against the law and to fail to provide prescribed information similarly, they should know that entering a property when entry has been refused is illegal and they should know that threatening tenants is harassment. That's why I'm taking action against them to the extent that is possible via the small claims court/county court and not because of greed.

Slithery

Josh1u wrote: »

...and they should know that to lodge a deposit after 30 days is against the law and to fail to provide prescribed information similarly...

It isn't illegal at all, just a non-compliance issue.

they should know that entering a property when entry has been refused is illegal and they should know that threatening tenants is harassment.

Both completely irrelevant to the claim for non-compliance and have caused you no monetary loss.

HampshireH

You need to seperate your issue about the deposit (for which it is the landlord you would need to sue not the letting agent. It is the landlords responsibility) and your issues with the agent.

2 seperate things and a judge is unlikely to be favourable to a messy application.

They are 2 seperate issues. 2 seperate claims.

I would suggest finding alternative accommodation if your LL and agent are so horrific ...... thry may also make this decision for you by serving notice. Of which why would you want to stay?

Josh1u

In fact, when making a court claim, the behaviour of the landlord can be taken into account when the judge makes a decision. When a claim is against the letting agents, as it can be, the same applies.

The law clearly states "references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies".

The advice on the Shelter website states that action can be taken against letting agents.

Two barristers have told me the same thing. Because people usually take action against the landlord, who is ultimately responsible for complying with the requirements, it does not mean action cannot be taken against the letting agents instead or in addition.

Slithery

Josh1u wrote: »

Two barristers have told me the same thing.

So why on earth are you asking us for advice?

Please post back after your day in court - I can't wait to see how this ends.

Josh1u

There is a no-win no-fee solicitor who is going to take it on if there are any complications. My guess is that it won't go to court anyway.

Cakeguts

Josh1u wrote: »

It is rude because it assumed that I am grabbing money. If that poster knew the situations that have occurred in my tenancy, they would no doubt change their tune. But, as many people do in this country, they jumped to a conclusion about my character.

In fact, I am claiming against the letting agents, not the landlord. I am doing so because letting agents share the responsibility, or at least in my tenancy contract it states they do, and they should know that to lodge a deposit after 30 days is against the law and to fail to provide prescribed information similarly, they should know that entering a property when entry has been refused is illegal and they should know that threatening tenants is harassment. That's why I'm taking action against them to the extent that is possible via the small claims court/county court and not because of greed.

You can't refuse entry to the property if the correct notice has been given if the entry is to do repairs or a gas certificate. They have to be able to get entry to be able to carry out their obligations under the tenancy. Not only that but guidelines suggest that landlords check their properties regularly to make sure that the person living there is the person on the tenancy agreement.



The ultimate responsibility for the deposit is with the landlord. You cannot take the agents to court because you do not have a contract with them. You have to take the landlord to court and the landlord takes the agents to court. They are not your agents they are the landlords agents.



You have to have evidence of harrassment. Just saying that they were annoyed because you wouldn't let them into the property after they had given you notice isn't harrassment.



Harrassment is when someone turns up day after day and makes threats for no reason.