Unprotected deposit - relationship breakdown

Banana23

Hi Lisyloo, thanks for your reply. Can you please elaborate? Did your LL take you to court for eviction but the whole process took months which gave you time to look for something else? If so, that’s good to know as it would give me at least a bit of time to sort something should the worst happen.

Comms69

Banana23 wrote: »

Hi Lisyloo, thanks for your reply. Can you please elaborate? Did your LL take you to court for eviction but the whole process took months which gave you time to look for something else? If so, that’s good to know as it would give me at least a bit of time to sort something should the worst happen.

Average eviction time is 6-9 months.


2 months notice
2 weeks court application
2 weeks for resposnes
6 weeks (avg) for a date
2 weeks for order
2-4 weeks for enforcement order
4-6 weeks for bailiffs


- Times vary slightly, so London courts are busier than most.

wesleyad

[QUOTE=Banana23;75881423
In some circumstances, the six-year limit would be unfair if it dates from the expiry of the 30-day time limit for compliance, since the issue of deposit protection may only come to the tenant's attention when the tenancy ends. Also, a tenant may continue in occupation for longer than six years, knowing that the deposit was not protected, but not wanting to bring a claim in case of a retaliatory eviction.
The question of the correct limitation period has not been tested in the courts.”

Ok so it is not entirely set in stone when exactly when the statue of limitations expires. Tricky situation, because no one knows whether the judge would accept my argument for not claiming within the 6 year time frame.[/QUOTE]

There is no chance that a 6 year limitation would be in place from the start of the tenancy for the above reasons. OK it hasn't been tested in court, but it's very clear that someone with a tenancy over 6 years would be massively punished through no fault of their own if this was the case. You can't have a situation where a LL breaking the law is OK as long as he can get a tenant to stay for 6 years.

Exodi

wesleyad wrote: »

There is no chance that a 6 year limitation would be in place from the start of the tenancy for the above reasons. OK it hasn't been tested in court, but it's very clear that someone with a tenancy over 6 years would be massively punished through no fault of their own if this was the case. You can't have a situation where a LL breaking the law is OK as long as he can get a tenant to stay for 6 years.

To reinforce the above; the statue of limitations would only come into question if it was brought as a defence by the landlord, which would be unlikely with the above taken into consideration. It's most likely it would not be mentioned at all.

martindow

There's talk of eviction but wouldn't an S21 be invalid as the deposit's not protected? Maybe the process to get social housing is going to be not defending the S21 and letting the court process continue or would a judge check things like a protected deposit even if it is uncontested?