PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Landlord / Letting agency deposit dispute advice

2

Comments

  • FrancisBegbie
    FrancisBegbie Posts: 51 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 10 Posts
    What have they stolen? 
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    FrancisBegbie said:
    What have they stolen? 
    Its a blackmail offence
  • moneysavinghero
    moneysavinghero Posts: 1,761 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
  • grumiofoundation
    grumiofoundation Posts: 3,051 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 28 October 2020 at 4:12PM
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Trying to convince the OP they are being blackmailed is not very helpful. 

    Trying to prove that threatening to take someone to court - i.e. following legal procedure (a letter before action, by definition, 'threatens' court) -  constitutes menace would be very tricky to prove. 

    It has been determined (sic) by deposit service's adjudicator - yes but this does not prevent a landlord or indeed a tenant challenging this ruling (as all the deposit protection services various documentation will show)


    All that being said landlord is likely just trying it on hoping you will pay up - as said by posters above chances of this going to court are low, and chance of you losing if it did even lower. 

  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Ye, no. The 'with menace' excludes legal action. 
  • moneysavinghero
    moneysavinghero Posts: 1,761 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    grumiofoundation said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Trying to convince the OP they are being blackmailed is not very helpful. 

    Trying to prove that threatening to take someone to court - i.e. following legal procedure (a letter before action, by definition, 'threatens' court) -  constitutes menace would be very tricky to prove. 

    It has been determined (sic) by deposit service's adjudicator - yes but this does not prevent a landlord or indeed a tenant challenging this ruling (as all the deposit protection services various documentation will show)


    All that being said landlord is likely just trying it on hoping you will pay up - as said by posters above chances of this going to court are low, and chance of you losing if it did even lower. 

    I did not try to convince the OP that they are being blackmailed. I just suggested they could play them at their own game - ie threaten legal action that they actually have no intention of launching.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    moneysavinghero said:
    grumiofoundation said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Trying to convince the OP they are being blackmailed is not very helpful. 

    Trying to prove that threatening to take someone to court - i.e. following legal procedure (a letter before action, by definition, 'threatens' court) -  constitutes menace would be very tricky to prove. 

    It has been determined (sic) by deposit service's adjudicator - yes but this does not prevent a landlord or indeed a tenant challenging this ruling (as all the deposit protection services various documentation will show)


    All that being said landlord is likely just trying it on hoping you will pay up - as said by posters above chances of this going to court are low, and chance of you losing if it did even lower. 

    I did not try to convince the OP that they are being blackmailed. I just suggested they could play them at their own game - ie threaten legal action that they actually have no intention of launching.
    Not would they have a choice, since victims do not press charges in this country...
  • moneysavinghero
    moneysavinghero Posts: 1,761 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Ye, no. The 'with menace' excludes legal action. 
    That would be for the courts to decide. As everyone on this thread has stated, they have no intention to actually to go to court because they know they would lose, so it is unwarranted. The courts would have to decide whether they were just giving them notice of their intention to go to court, or whether it actually was an attempt to make the tenant pay over money that they did not owe with no intention to ever go to court. The debt collectors probably would not want to have to hand over details of how many cases they have threatened to take to court and how many of those cases actually went to court.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Comms69 said:
    moneysavinghero said:
    Play them at their own game, refer them to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and let them know if they would like to go to court then you are more than happy.
    How would that apply?
    They have:
    • Made a demand for money
    • The demand has been made with menace that they will be taken to court if they don't cough up
    • The menace is unwarranted as the tenant does not owe anything as has been independently detirmined
    • The menace was made with a view for to gain £195 and cause £195 loss to the tenant.
    Ye, no. The 'with menace' excludes legal action. 
    That would be for the courts to decide. As everyone on this thread has stated, they have no intention to actually to go to court because they know they would lose, so it is unwarranted. The courts would have to decide whether they were just giving them notice of their intention to go to court, or whether it actually was an attempt to make the tenant pay over money that they did not owe with no intention to ever go to court. The debt collectors probably would not want to have to hand over details of how many cases they have threatened to take to court and how many of those cases actually went to court.
    No it wouldn't be. Because the OP cannot initiate this action (well strictly they could bring a private prosecution, but that's £20,000 so...) 

    Debt collectors don't take people to court. You're showing yourself up; just stop. 
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture