Can I take my landlord to court?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Mr_LoL wrote: »

Ok. The landlord probably thinks I am a freloader. Trying to get something from nothing but rules are rules.

I think you are a free loader too, and now I know why :-

Its very bad. I have defaults on both Experian and Equifax. No ccj's though. Once you get accepted for the cash account, fund it with as much cash as possible. After 3 months phone up and ask for an upgrade. I think Lloyds score you internally for upgrades.

It's to be hoped that you next LL does a proper credit check on you - maybe then you will regret stiring it up and getting the boot from your current accomodation.

Whilst this seems a good bit of legislation, how on earth can any fine levied go to the tenant? surely it should go back to the scheme to reduce running costs?

If your landlord is otherwise fair then just drop it, as mentioned, you will be out on your ear as soon as the LL can legally kick you out, and of course you name will soon be mud as it is very easy to trace these cases on the 'net.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

SquatNow wrote: »

It doesn't matter. You can go to court and sue in absence. As long as the LL owns the property they have an asset you can seize.

If they run around saying "I don't own it" you can just say OK you wont mind me renting it out to someone and keeping the cash then.

10 seconds later your deposit re-appears.

If you own land, you can't simply up and disappear without losing it.

1 Good reason not to buy a house/land... if the police catch up with you you can just vanish without losses!

You come out with some twaddle.

There is a duty to prove that the summons is served at a known good address, otherwise you have to get leave to serve the summons ex-parte.

You assume equity before knowing if the property is in fact a liability.

Snooze

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

You come out with some twaddle.

There is a duty to prove that the summons is served at a known good address, otherwise you have to get leave to serve the summons ex-parte.

You assume equity before knowing if the property is in fact a liability.

I thought the same thing but to be honest I don't know enough about the rules and regs on this to comment with any certainty so I didn't bother replying. Glad you've confirmed my suspicions.

Rob

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Plenty get set aside after swearing a stat declaration. You can't just issue a summons hoping you will win by default knowing it won't be received - well you can, but then the judgement gets set aside and the process starts again.

Bungarm2001

You say that the LL or LA whatever only protected your deposit after you asked them about it, and this nearly 6 months after the start of your tenancy.

My question is when did YOU actually realise that it should have been protected and you could have a case for taking this to small claims?

My gut feeling is that you are a freloader.

Tired of unscrupulous tenants to be honest.

clutton_2

""I am wondering if I can take my landlord to small claims court to get my deposit back?""

a deposit it kept against non payment of rent and/or repairs. irrespective of where it was/who had it/was it registered in a scheme blah blah - no you cant have it back.

neverdespairgirl

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

My question is when did YOU actually realise that it should have been protected and you could have a case for taking this to small claims?

That is entirely irrelevant.

Andy_Hamilton

Do you have a cast iron invetory of the house?

Feel free to take the landlord to court, you might even win the 3x deposit money but as others say; your opening a can of worms on yourself.
I'd stake £100 on the fact you'll be house hunting before your case goes to court without any reference from this landlord.

Yes in a fair world everyone would play by the rules but if your landlord is a t**t, he knows where you live/park your car/ got your bank details to set up a standing order to RSPCA etc etc

Move on in life is all I would recommend - Life ain't fair!

speedbird1973

One thing I'm a little unsure of.

Did you move in on 21st December 2007? you don't seem to mention it anywhere in your posts!

Bungarm2001

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That is entirely irrelevant.

Irrelevant it may be, but I am so curious as to why now the tenant has decided s/he might go the small claims route regarding late protection of the deposit after 6 months? Is it perhaps plausible that there is more to this story than meets the eye?? (...for want of a better phrase, but I think my meaning comes across....)