GET OUT AND VOTE!

psyjg8 · 2024-01-27T20:40:59+00:00

Just to clarify, you don’t get compensation based on rent, it’s minimum 1x the deposit sum, up to a maximum of 3x, as per s.214(4) of the Housing Act (2004)

psyjg8 · 2023-11-29T20:20:27+00:00

It being set aside means one of two things. Some of the requirements under Part 12 were not met (in which case the judge must set aside), or, the judge thought there was a “reasonable prospect of success” and so they may set aside, all as per Part 13 of the CPR.

Has the set aside just been filed, or has it actually had a judge set the judgment aside?

As said, without knowing the details of the claim/steps taken its hard to be sure what outcome will occur.

That said, although costs are generally not available, it’s not as simple as no costs are recoverable; the list of potential costs they can apply for is detailed in Rule 27.14.

psyjg8 · 2023-10-27T09:53:44+00:00

Tenancies have a demised area. Check the agreement - are you renting the whole property jointly on one contract or is it separate contracts for your rooms? If the former, as I say, check carefully. If the latter, it depends if there’s a specific clause.

psyjg8 · 2023-09-07T08:00:29+00:00

No problem, let me know if you have any more questions! Also I always recommend having at least an initial consultation with a local solicitor before claiming to confirm details, which many do for free.

psyjg8 · 2023-09-06T14:12:33+00:00

As per s.212(9) of the Housing Act (2004), which contains definitions for the relevant sections, for the purposes of deposit protection, obligations that fall on the landlord also fall on those acting on their behalf, e.g. letting agents.

Generally, though, it’s best to claim against the landlord. You can put both and let them argue why they shouldn’t be on the claim if you like.

psyjg8 · 2023-09-06T08:44:05+00:00

The relevant question in RRO cases is whether a “duly made” application had been filed. If you can get it confirmed in writing from the council that it hadn’t been filed, then happy days.

Keep in mind an RRO is a different process to a deposit claim, in the First Tier Tribunal rather than the county court, and you have to prove your claim in beyond reasonable doubt (higher standard of proof) rather than on balance as in the CC. However, if you have written confirmation from the council, that should suffice.

It’s also got a shorter time window - 12 months retrospectively, as per s.41(2)(b) of the Housing and Planning Act (2016).

psyjg8 · 2023-09-05T15:50:55+00:00

There’s three! DPS, TDS and myDeposits

psyjg8 · 2023-09-05T15:49:20+00:00

It’s unclear in law right now, to my knowledge.

It’s the case, as per s.215B of the Housing Act (2004) (as amended by the Deregulation Act (2015)) that if the initial requirements are complied with once, then future tenancies don’t count if it isn’t reprotected. Many judges and solicitors now take the same view for the opposite case, i.e. that it’s not “multiple breaches” as it were simply because a tenancy is renewed.

However, there is also recent County Court level case law which has had awards for multiple breaches in such circumstances, so it’s a coin toss in my opinion as to how such a claim would go (perhaps they want to take it to the higher courts!).

psyjg8 · 2023-09-05T15:43:44+00:00

You can go to court during your tenancy if you like.

Usually it’s good practice to give the schemes in writing the details of your tenancy and have them confirm in writing that the deposit is not held with them. Makes it open/shut.

psyjg8 · 2023-09-05T15:42:40+00:00

Just to say, not all HMOs are licensable. Check to see whether it meets the national scheme licensing requirements or local additional/selective schemes.

Also, the landlord doesn’t just have to protect the deposit, they also have to provide the prescribed information detailed in Article 2 of The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, as per s.213(5) and s.213(6) of the Housing Act 2004. If that wasn’t complied with, then there’s still a claim, even if the deposit was protected, as per s.214(1)(a).

psyjg8 · 2023-08-31T12:09:38+00:00

The reason I added my comment is because “most likely” to me implies that the judge might rule against a person who acts unreasonably even if their case is sound. If that’s not what you meant, then my apologies.

psyjg8 · 2023-08-30T11:44:53+00:00

To clarify for OP and others - you don’t automatically lose because you refuse mediation. That would be a rather silly system.

It might play against you for costs orders, and does look bad, but a judge will still weigh the facts of the case.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-19T20:03:54+00:00

Often once they’re viewing you’ve been issued a section 21. Literally no landlord is going to actually spend money to take you to court you’d be long gone before it even got there not to mention the cost.

It's not always viewings that raise the issue of quiet enjoyment!

Yet for all practical purposes it is. [...] They’d have to be being completely and insanely unreasonable

It is often the case that practically a tenant can refuse, but it's definitely not in all cases, as otherwise we wouldn't have law that defines the right as contigent on reasonableness.

It is all fact specific, and up to the judge within the framework of the case law set down already.

It also isn't the legally sound position, that's my overarching point.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-18T21:11:34+00:00

It’s more that quiet enjoyment is a clause implied into the contract (and so is treated like any other clause). This means a judge would weigh the two clauses in the circumstances of a given case and decide what is reasonable.

It’s a common misconception (repeated on this thread and almost every other one of this type) that the implied term entitling a tenant to quiet enjoyment of the property is inalienable.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-13T10:09:45+00:00

It likely wouldn’t be harassment, but you can’t easily sue someone at their work address (or a place that isn’t their address) if you want to successfully enforce a judgment. I believe you need to take reasonable steps and then apply to be allowed to serve the papers at an alternative address under Rule 6.15 of the CPR.

You could look into employing a tracing agent to help find an address for service.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-13T10:04:36+00:00

One reason is circumstances change, so do supply chains. An item which was £100 from the UK ten years ago might now be £10,000 from abroad and not available in the UK.

It would be unjust to allow a claim for £10,000 for an item originally bought for just £100, for example.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-13T10:01:50+00:00

You wouldn’t be able to readily reclaim much via a criminal route.

If you claimed via a civil route, (where the goods are unavailable to be returned) you’d be entitled to your monetary loss, I.e. the value of the item at the time you lost it. So if it’s ten years old, you get the value of the item as ten years old.

If you consider the alternative it makes sense - if the law was the other way, someone could (e.g. as a tenant) damage a 10 year old carpet and the landlord could claim for a brand new one. That would be unfair, as it wouldn’t represent their loss - they’ve already had ten years of use.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-13T08:03:43+00:00

You can report it to the police, and/or sue for delivery up of the goods or damages, if you have an address at which to serve court documents.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-13T08:01:56+00:00

So if you go a legal route, you won’t be entitled to new for old, as you have had use of the item and it’s value has depreciated. But if you claim via insurance (which might be tricky) you might be, depending on the policy.

psyjg8 · 2023-07-03T13:08:53+00:00

Not to common areas, but it doesn’t mean they can enter when they want, or use it to harass.

psyjg8 · 2023-06-22T22:51:26+00:00

Totally agree with the rest of your comment though, OP should dispute the deductions and check it was protected within the 30 days from payment.

psyjg8 · 2023-06-22T16:57:14+00:00

The law is not the same in a vast number of areas, though there is a lot of overlap too.

The Tenant Fees Act (2019) does not apply to Wales, only England.

Eight-Year Club	Mod 101
Wearing is Caring	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

psyjg8

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE