ex tenants deposit claim
Discussion
Alucidnation said:
You're right.
Being a landlord isn't for you.
I have a few properties that always need maintaining and yet after that, I still have plenty of funds available for any unforeseen issues.
I own some rental properties. I wish I could be as good as you; you're a living legend. Being a landlord isn't for you.
I have a few properties that always need maintaining and yet after that, I still have plenty of funds available for any unforeseen issues.
creampuff said:
Alucidnation said:
You're right.
Being a landlord isn't for you.
I have a few properties that always need maintaining and yet after that, I still have plenty of funds available for any unforeseen issues.
I own some rental properties. I wish I could be as good as you; you're a living legend. Being a landlord isn't for you.
I have a few properties that always need maintaining and yet after that, I still have plenty of funds available for any unforeseen issues.
Just put in a counter claim for the outstanding rent? Worst case, you get 'fined' for not protecting the deposit, judge then offsets it against your counter claim for the rent. You might even come out with more (good luck trying to ever collect it though).
I took my ex LL to small claims for failing to protect my deposit (and then making spurious deductions. It must have been one of the very first cases to reach court. The judge had no idea about this new law and was flabbergasted when I read out the 3x fine stated in the Housing Act. He adjourned the hearing so that he could read up on it.
When we went back a week later he had decided that the 3x fine etc didn't apply because the tenancy had expired - according to him, only a current tenant could claim the 'fine' for failing to protect the deposit. So the case was dismissed, with no award made either way (and I was out of pocket for all the money claim and court expenses). I'm sure he was wrong, but I'd run out of money and will power to risk fighting it any further, I was even told that I couldn't appeal on the basis that the judge had got the law wrong.
I took my ex LL to small claims for failing to protect my deposit (and then making spurious deductions. It must have been one of the very first cases to reach court. The judge had no idea about this new law and was flabbergasted when I read out the 3x fine stated in the Housing Act. He adjourned the hearing so that he could read up on it.
When we went back a week later he had decided that the 3x fine etc didn't apply because the tenancy had expired - according to him, only a current tenant could claim the 'fine' for failing to protect the deposit. So the case was dismissed, with no award made either way (and I was out of pocket for all the money claim and court expenses). I'm sure he was wrong, but I'd run out of money and will power to risk fighting it any further, I was even told that I couldn't appeal on the basis that the judge had got the law wrong.
mobbsy30 said:
Alucidnation said:
You're right.
Being a landlord isn't for you.
most of the replies I've had have been very helpful, yours are notBeing a landlord isn't for you.
Do you know all of your basic obligations?
The OP should not have made any offer of a financial settlement, and if any such a claim, service of legal papers are received, then a counterclaim for rental arrears etc. should be made by the OP.
From the contents of the OP’s postings, it would appear to me that the OP returned the Deposit monies, the same money allowing the ex tenant to reduce her rental arrears. These rental arrears, together with the ex tenants failure to serve Notice on the LL, failure to provide a forwarding address, the tenancy already have ended, and the lateness of the claim, the court will be entitled to find the culpability in the case at the lowest end of the scale.
I am certain that the court will recognise both that the OP was not an experienced LL, and that his breach of the Housing Act, was not for a reason of wrong intent, and that the court was now in a position to put things right, by awarding in favour of the defendant/OP.
From the contents of the OP’s postings, it would appear to me that the OP returned the Deposit monies, the same money allowing the ex tenant to reduce her rental arrears. These rental arrears, together with the ex tenants failure to serve Notice on the LL, failure to provide a forwarding address, the tenancy already have ended, and the lateness of the claim, the court will be entitled to find the culpability in the case at the lowest end of the scale.
I am certain that the court will recognise both that the OP was not an experienced LL, and that his breach of the Housing Act, was not for a reason of wrong intent, and that the court was now in a position to put things right, by awarding in favour of the defendant/OP.
mobbsy30 said:
most of the replies I've had have been very helpful, yours are not
To be fair, you've failed at the first hurdle. Registering the deposit has been a requirement fot around 10 years. Accurate record keeping is a given, saves hassle with tenants, the taxman and legal requirements - gas safety, Legionnaires and the like.When you relet, use an agent who will make sure you do thinks legally.
You do tell the taxman about this rent, don't you...
eldar said:
To be fair, you've failed at the first hurdle. Registering the deposit has been a requirement fot around 10 years. Accurate record keeping is a given, saves hassle with tenants, the taxman and legal requirements - gas safety, Legionnaires and the like.
When you relet, use an agent who will make sure you do thinks legally.
You do tell the taxman about this rent, don't you...
Agents usually charge twenty per cent, and are not always very goodWhen you relet, use an agent who will make sure you do thinks legally.
You do tell the taxman about this rent, don't you...
My direct experience with this was with my daughter, who had a 12month tenancy agreement, part of which was registered with a scheme. On leaving the property all of the deposit was withheld by the landlord.
My daughter took legal advice and went to small claims court. The hearing was held and the magistrate outlined the fine could be up to 3x the deposit (that included the deposit), depending how helpful/awkward or beligerant the landlord was.
I got the impression my daughter was certain to get her deposit back, and the "fine" would be the 2x max deposit.
However we then entered a series of counter claims by the landlord regarding damage to the property including not professionally cleaned etc, this resulted in the deposit returned was less than the full deposit due to any damage/non cleaning to the property, but the "fine" was 1.75 x the deposit.
From a landlords point of view i thought the magistrate was very fair, which i would translate into going to court you may have a good result considering your tenant leaving when owing you money.
Hope this helps
My daughter took legal advice and went to small claims court. The hearing was held and the magistrate outlined the fine could be up to 3x the deposit (that included the deposit), depending how helpful/awkward or beligerant the landlord was.
I got the impression my daughter was certain to get her deposit back, and the "fine" would be the 2x max deposit.
However we then entered a series of counter claims by the landlord regarding damage to the property including not professionally cleaned etc, this resulted in the deposit returned was less than the full deposit due to any damage/non cleaning to the property, but the "fine" was 1.75 x the deposit.
From a landlords point of view i thought the magistrate was very fair, which i would translate into going to court you may have a good result considering your tenant leaving when owing you money.
Hope this helps
It's worrying there is such misunderstanding amongst judges regarding the fine. Surely the fine can't be just the deposit?
If the landlord is trying to withhold 100% of the deposit and you are awarded 1x the deposit, you get your deposit back but there is zero fine for the landlord. It needs to be deposit + 1-3 x deposit. Or was this kind of thing only happening because some judges were unfamiliar with this law?
If the landlord is trying to withhold 100% of the deposit and you are awarded 1x the deposit, you get your deposit back but there is zero fine for the landlord. It needs to be deposit + 1-3 x deposit. Or was this kind of thing only happening because some judges were unfamiliar with this law?
You said the 'magistrate outlined the fine could be up to 3x the deposit (that included the deposit)'
So if there was no legitimate claim to the deposit, the magistrate is essentially saying the fine is only 2x the deposit.
What happened in your daughters case seems fair to me I suppose.
So if there was no legitimate claim to the deposit, the magistrate is essentially saying the fine is only 2x the deposit.
What happened in your daughters case seems fair to me I suppose.
Thermobaric said:
You said the 'magistrate outlined the fine could be up to 3x the deposit (that included the deposit)'
So if there was no legitimate claim to the deposit, the magistrate is essentially saying the fine is only 2x the deposit.
What happened in your daughters case seems fair to me I suppose.
Is this meant to be a fine or compensation?So if there was no legitimate claim to the deposit, the magistrate is essentially saying the fine is only 2x the deposit.
What happened in your daughters case seems fair to me I suppose.
Fines do not normally go to the victim and if the tenant gets the full deposit back what loss have they suffered to require compensation?
Toltec said:
Is this meant to be a fine or compensation?
Fines do not normally go to the victim and if the tenant gets the full deposit back what loss have they suffered to require compensation?
I guess it's both. Not sure if there is a proper word for it.Fines do not normally go to the victim and if the tenant gets the full deposit back what loss have they suffered to require compensation?
I have always wondered why it is awarded to the tenant.
Thanks again for all the helpful replies, I have drafted a letter which I will send to the solicitor along with a statement of arrears.
the letter basically says that, I apologise to them for my failure to protect the deposit and that I am willing to return to them the deposit and pay them the maximum penalty amount minus the arrears in full and final settlement . This rather neatly comes to the original deposit amount plus £50. I will enclose a cheque for that amount and hopefully the solicitor (who I doubt is aware of the arrears) will take one look and think that it isn't worth going to court over. Although I suspect they will try to up the amount.
However if I know her, she won't be able to turn down money now, on the basis of possibly getting more money later.
updates to come when I hear more.
the letter basically says that, I apologise to them for my failure to protect the deposit and that I am willing to return to them the deposit and pay them the maximum penalty amount minus the arrears in full and final settlement . This rather neatly comes to the original deposit amount plus £50. I will enclose a cheque for that amount and hopefully the solicitor (who I doubt is aware of the arrears) will take one look and think that it isn't worth going to court over. Although I suspect they will try to up the amount.
However if I know her, she won't be able to turn down money now, on the basis of possibly getting more money later.
updates to come when I hear more.
Thermobaric said:
Why offer the max penalty? Seems mad.
Just so happens to balance things out nicely........offer less and they would owe him money and could drag it on when, from what I can make out, the OP wants and end to it all and doubt the tenant has any money anyway. Could be wrong though.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff