PDA

View Full Version : Overseas L did not protect deposit: ex-T's threats



Magic
12-04-2008, 06:12 AM
I'm an overseas landlord who rents out her UK residence. New tenants moved in last October when I was briefly back in the UK. I received the deposit from the tenants which I forgot to register until it was too late as I had never had to do this before. I was never asked about registration and I have kept their deposit safe.

The tenants have now MOVED OUT but there was minor damage in breach of their contract - about 300GBP worth. In trying to discuss this with them I admitted I hadn't registered the TDS. They are now threatening to sue me for the 3X deposit money. Any suggestions about what I should do? The tenancy is now completed - can they sue as ex-tenants? Should I just give them all their deposit back and forget the 300 GBP worth?

Does anyone know how the law is likely to work on this? I had no idea that I could incur a 3X deposit liability or obviously I'd have lodged the money.

I'm not a bigshot landlord - just a middle-aged woman letting out her only house and living cheaply in Cambodia to save money. I've been letting out my house for three years before and pride myself in acting quickly and generously to tenants complaints.

Please help! Shocked and upset:eek:

Colincbayley
12-04-2008, 08:09 AM
Your tenants/ex-tenant are well within there rights to take you to court for 3X the deposit amount.
Not being aware of the law is not a defenence. It is clear you have made a mistake, you now need to get out of it as cheaply as you can.
If it were me, I would give them there full deposit back, then pray the do nothing else about it.
If they did pursue you for the 3X penalty, they WILL win.

A very harsh lesson to learn!

P.Pilcher
12-04-2008, 08:18 AM
Regrettably, you are paying the price that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Your tenant is entitled to what he is threatening as the law about the penalty for not protecting a deposit is quite clear. As another thread on this forum shows however, the county courts have not yet got around to enforcing it and tenants are having difficulty in recovering their 3x deposit through the county courts at present. Apparently this may continue until an appeal court judgement has further clarified matters (if they aren't clear enough already.) I suspect that if refunding his deposit will get your ex-tenant of your back this may be the best solution and you will have to write off the £300 that you wish to retain. However I should check back here for more qualified advice.
Best of luck

P.P.

Beeber
12-04-2008, 10:08 AM
Does this come under the small claims court process?

When we were seeking to recover the share of maintenance costs from an overseas landlord via the local courts, we were told by CAB to forget it as it impossible to serve/enforce claims when the defendant isn't in the uk.

Planner
12-04-2008, 10:09 AM
I'm an overseas landlord who rents out her UK residence. New tenants moved in last October when I was briefly back in the UK. I received the deposit from the tenants which I forgot to register until it was too late as I had never had to do this before. I was never asked about registration and I have kept their deposit safe.

The tenants have now MOVED OUT but there was minor damage in breach of their contract - about 300GBP worth. In trying to discuss this with them I admitted I hadn't registered the TDS. They are now threatening to sue me for the 3X deposit money. Any suggestions about what I should do? The tenancy is now completed - can they sue as ex-tenants? Should I just give them all their deposit back and forget the 300 GBP worth?

Does anyone know how the law is likely to work on this? I had no idea that I could incur a 3X deposit liability or obviously I'd have lodged the money.

I'm not a bigshot landlord - just a middle-aged woman letting out her only house and living cheaply in Cambodia to save money. I've been letting out my house for three years before and pride myself in acting quickly and generously to tenants complaints.

Please help! Shocked and upset:eek:


I would give all their deposit back as suggested and hope they dont go to court for their x3 entitlement. Brush up on what you need to do/changing legislation while abroad, to be honest the best way to do that would be to check this website/forums once or twice a month! as we are pretty on the pulse. Its unfortunate that you have been caught out like this, the legislation was establsihed to tackle the big serial offenders but as ever in life its generally the little fish that get stung.

TDS would only apply if the property was in England or Wales and it was an AST.

Good luck for next time and keep your fingers crossed that they dont come looking for more once you return the deposit!

cas84_utd2
12-04-2008, 17:24 PM
This is another instance of the discussion we were having the other day, about 215(4) being an "also" clause.

If LL returns 100% of the deposit then judge surely cant apply 215(3) as the deposit has already been returned in full as per 215(3)(a), and therefore the judge can't apply 215(4) either.

This really needs to get clarified, as if this is the case, then it looks like the 3x deposit compensation will NEVER get awarded, as a LL can wriggle out of it on receipt of the court claim forms by either protecting the full deposit if still within tenancy (albeit late), or return the deposit in full if the tenancy has ended.

Were there not any cases around the end of 2007? As this would have been the end of the first 6 month tenancies affected by TDP?

kayak
14-04-2008, 08:39 AM
I'm not sure on the legal significance of this but I know someone who went through the courts for 3x, plus original deposit plus interest on the online system and the courts adwarded a judgement for the full amount as there was no defence put in by the LL.

The case was settled out of court.

Kind regards,

John

pelar
14-04-2008, 11:45 AM
What does this mean? I rent a property and as far as I'm aware my LL hasn't "registered" the deposit I paid, I doubt she knows of this process. What does this entail? How do I find out if my deposit is registered and what does it mean anyway!?
Any advice gratefully received. Many thanks for taking the time to read this.

jeffrey
14-04-2008, 13:22 PM
It might have been a Consent Order, simply ratifying what the parties agreed:
a. before Court proceedings started; or
b. during an adjournment.
Having such an Order is useful:
a. not only to evidence the agreed terms; but also
b. in case one party fails to perform what was agreed (and other party wants to propel him/her into action).

Magic
17-04-2008, 07:08 AM
Hi,

Many thanks to everyone who has replied to this question. (I hadn't realised that I'd had any replies as I'd asked for notification to my email - but this bit of the system doesn't seem to be working.)

The general view is that I should return them the full deposit and just take the hit on the £300.

It would seem if they accept the deposit being fully returned then they can't sue for the additional 3X?

I have 3 tenants - they each paid one third of the deposit. I have currently returned the full deposit to the most hostile, but retained £100 from each of the other two - i.e. £200 now towards my damages.

Would each of the tenants have to take me to court - or can they act as one? The ringleader has been returned her full deposit. Can this be taken through the small claims court or would it need to go full court?

Thanks for your help

Magic

Colincbayley
17-04-2008, 07:20 AM
It would seem if they accept the deposit being fully returned then they can't sue for the additional 3X?



Sorry but no. Even if you return the deposit in full to them, they could still pursue you via the courts for the 3X penalty.

Magic
17-04-2008, 08:45 AM
Is there any time limit on this?

Colincbayley
17-04-2008, 08:53 AM
Is there any time limit on this?

Not according to the 2004 housing act, no! ( And no it is not fair! )

kayak
17-04-2008, 08:59 AM
It might have been a Consent Order, simply ratifying what the parties agreed:
a. before Court proceedings started; or
b. during an adjournment.
Having such an Order is useful:
a. not only to evidence the agreed terms; but also
b. in case one party fails to perform what was agreed (and other party wants to propel him/her into action).

I'm afraid I know very little about the legal system but this is roughly how it all went!

Tenant used the online money claim system to claim 3x deposit plus original deposit plus interest for a tenancy that finished about six months previously.

LL has 14 days to file a defence - no defence was filed.

Tenant then had the option to ask for an automatic judgement and chose for the LL to pay back the full amount (as opposed to installment).

Landlord then had 21 days (I think) to reply. No reply was filed so then the option of issueing a warrant is there. However, before the warrant was filed the LL contacted the tenant and it was settled without the warrant being issued.

Not sure how any of that fits in to the above but it is more or less what happened!

Kind regards,

John

P.S. Just to clarify - no one physically went to a court room!

cas84_utd2
17-04-2008, 11:26 AM
A lot of the TDS legislation is down to interpretation of the wording.

Some ppl would say that if you've returned the full deposit, or protected it in a custodial scheme (despite missing the 14 day deadline), then a tenant cant pursue the 3x. This is because these ppl would say that 214(4) cannot apply without 214(3) due to the 'also' in 214(4), and 214(3) could not apply as (a) or (b) have been satisfied.

Some ppl would say that 214(4) can apply independently of 214(3).

No one has a definitive answer until we get a case go under full hearing.

There is more. There is also confusion about 213(6)(a) - whether this automatically includes 213(6)(b) due to the 'and' at the end of (a). (b) is the crucial 14 day part.

Planner
17-04-2008, 11:46 AM
The answer is possibly here http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=10746

The landlord argued that he had now protected the deposit. The judge still awared the x3 amount;

TENANCY DEPOSIT CASE (S213 HA 2004)

Stankova v. Glassonbury 10th March 2008, Gloucester County Court

The claimant Ms Stankova is from Bulgaria and took a private tenancy with Mr Glassonbury on 1.8.07. She was a joint tenant with her daughter and another tenant (unknown to her before start of tenancy).

The tenants jointly paid a deposit of £600 in order to move in. The landlord did not notify any of the tenants that he had deposited the money in any of the statutory Schemes at any time.

There were various problems with the landlord and he served notice on 2.10.07. The notice was defective. The third tenant moved out of property shortly afterwards and the three tenants made arrangements about how the deposit would be dealt with on its return.

On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment. The landlord promptly served a further notice November 2007 under s21 which was on the face of it a valid notice.

Ms Stankova moved out in Feb 2008. She made a claim under the Housing Act 2004 against the landlord for his failure to notify her within 14 days of how he would deal with the deposit and which scheme he was using.

The landlord submitted various arguments against the claim; that the tenant owed some rent arrears, that he had now placed the deposit in a scheme and that there was damage at the property for which he would wish to withhold some or all of the deposit.

At the hearing of the matter District Judge Singleton ordered the landlord to pay £1800 +£75 costs in respect of three times the deposit plus the court fee.

In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies.

Comment: In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant.

cas84_utd2
17-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Planner - I posted my reply (above) before I'd seen that thread.

Great news about the Case Law! Makes me feel much better about my case now :)

Going to go read some more around this case and will post a reply on your thread Planner.

Cheers

agent46
17-04-2008, 12:11 PM
A lot of the TDS legislation is down to interpretation of the wording.

Some ppl would say that if you've returned the full deposit, or protected it in a custodial scheme (despite missing the 14 day deadline), then a tenant cant pursue the 3x. This is because these ppl would say that 214(4) cannot apply without 214(3) due to the 'also' in 214(4), and 214(3) could not apply as (a) or (b) have been satisfied.

Some ppl would say that 214(4) can apply independently of 214(3).

No one has a definitive answer until we get a case go under full hearing.

There is more. There is also confusion about 213(6)(a) - whether this automatically includes 213(6)(b) due to the 'and' at the end of (a). (b) is the crucial 14 day part.

After having a proper look at it, I've changed my view on this issue and I think remedial compliance is possible. HA 2004 s.214(1)(a) and s.214(2) are very specific in their application and very pointedly, by reference to s.213(4) and s.213(6)(a) alone, effectively excise or disapply the time limit requirements in s.213(3) and s.213(6)(b). It strikes me as odd however, that s.214(1) refers to s.213(4), which is, in effect a subsection which merely defines the meaning of "initial requirements". Surely it would have made more sense to refer back to s.213(1)? Just another example of the poor quality of legal drafting in modern legislation I suppose :(.

Another thing to consider is that the penalties for non-compliance are severe and are, it could be argued, wholly disproportionate to the LL's default; as such, it would be highly unusual for there to be no way for the LL to put his house in order.

Strict liability penalties are quite common, and can be extremely harsh, but they are usually enforced by a regulatory body (eg: the Health and Safety Executive) who use the various regulations as a tool to educate and persuade rather than to punish, and resort to prosecution is usually a last resort (although the TDP proceedings being civil would not amount to a prosecution). However, when there are strict liability penalties and there is no such associated regulatory "overseer" to ensure remedial compliance with the law eg: with speeding or parking fines, the penalties are usually quite modest. For example, the penalty for speeding in a 30mph zone is what, £60?.

That is not a complete anology, but it serves reasonably well to illustrate how unusual and radical the provisions in HA 2004 would be if they did not allow for a LL to comply with the TDP requirements retrospectively.

cas84_utd2
17-04-2008, 12:55 PM
There are many arguments to this - if retrospective compliance was allowed then it could be argued that this would be fair, for those landlords who have good intentions and are simply ignorant or unaware of the new legislation. But then this also has implications in terms of the unruly landlords - they could take the deposit, not protect it on purpose with the intention of 'stealing' some of it at the end of the tenancy (by stealing, i mean unfairly make deductions), and then subsequently protect it IF the tenant initiates proceedings - thus getting themselves off the hook.

The 14 day limit is interesting. Like I said, 213(6)(a) has 'and' on the end of it, which some could interpret as the inclusion of (b) within (a). Also it could be argued that 14 day limit also falls under the "initial requirements of an authorised scheme", as per 213(4), as the terms and conditions of these schemes often state that it must be protected within 14 days, and this is certainly the case for the custodial scheme, DPS. Our landlord protected our deposit on receipt of our court forms (10 months after taking the deposit), and I called DPS and confirmed with them that this was non compliant.

Of course you can argue it the other way as well.

In any case - we still have case law - I consider that a point for the home team!

Magic
17-04-2008, 13:15 PM
Hi,

I may be ignorant but to what are the numbers 213(6) etc referring to? Where can I look up the precise wording myself?

Thanks again

Magic

agent46
17-04-2008, 13:25 PM
The 14 day limit is interesting. Like I said, 213(6)(a) has 'and' on the end of it, which some could interpret as the inclusion of (b) within (a). Also it could be argued that 14 day limit also falls under the "initial requirements of an authorised scheme", as per 213(4), as the terms and conditions of these schemes often state that it must be protected within 14 days, and this is certainly the case for the custodial scheme, DPS.

That was my initial view - that the initial 14 day deadline is part and parcel of the initial requirements and once the deadline passed, that was that - but having had another look at it, I've changed my mind for the reasons set out in my other post, although in terms of my certainty, I'm still only about 70/30! I certainly could argue this issue both ways

It looks like some lucky soul will be having a day out down the Strand at some point soon in order clarify the meaning of yet more dodgy drafting.....

Magic - we were referring to various sections of the Housing Act 2004 - look here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=6&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=977975&activetextdocid=978275

Magic
17-04-2008, 14:03 PM
My (non-legal) understanding was that compliance couldn't be effected after the 14 day period, which was why I left it. Clearly I can't comply now as the tenants have left and I've handed back most of the deposit.

What do you think I should do - hand bank the remaining 200GBP and hope for the best (although if there's no time limit they could still come after me anytime in the future).

Or should I ask them to agree to settle if I hand back the remaining 200GBP?

If they chase me through the courts, would that be the Small Claims or the County Court?

Would they each have to claim?

Does it make any difference that I'm living in Cambodia?

MISSYJ
17-04-2008, 14:14 PM
Hi
Yes really you need somone to manage for you to makesure this does
not happen again to you if you need I can help you with your property
sorry to hear about your problems you dont have to be big shot we all
have problems if you want help please contact and ask for me
Many Thanks

cas84_utd2
17-04-2008, 14:26 PM
Living in Cambodia may make a difference - I remember seeing something about this in a different case... someone else will need to clarify though as I have no knowledge in this area.

If you are going to settle this with tenants then get it in writing. There is nothing to stop them coming after you later unless you do so.

If it's a joint tenancy they will claim together - one claim. It's a County Court procedure, this is specified in the legislation.

agent46
17-04-2008, 14:37 PM
My (non-legal) understanding was that compliance couldn't be effected after the 14 day period, which was why I left it. Clearly I can't comply now as the tenants have left and I've handed back most of the deposit.

What do you think I should do - hand bank the remaining 200GBP and hope for the best (although if there's no time limit they could still come after me anytime in the future).

Or should I ask them to agree to settle if I hand back the remaining 200GBP?

If they chase me through the courts, would that be the Small Claims or the County Court?

Would they each have to claim?

Does it make any difference that I'm living in Cambodia?

You could offer to repay the deductions you made from their deposit in exchange for an agreement not to pursue you for the 3X deposit, but you will have to be quite skilful in how you approach them, because if you sound weak or desparate then they may scent blood......

The Small Claims court is simply the name given to the procedure used for claims of less than £5000 in the County Court. Notwithstanding the value of the claim, a Tenancy Deposit claim may or may not be a Small Claim depending on which procedure the tenants opt to use. If they opt to use a procedure known as Part 8 proceedings, these are not treated as small claims and are in fact allocated to what is known as the "Multi-Track."

Presuming it was a joint tenancy, all the tenants should claim as joint claimants. The Civil Procedure Rules r.19.3 stipulates that any person who is jointly entitled to a remedy that refuses to take part in proceedings as a joint claimant should be joined as a defendant to the action. So, if the tenants don't claim jointly, this could potentially be a bit of an advantage to you as you could make an application to have the other tenants joined as defendants and this might throw a spanner in the works if one or more of the tenants has gone AWOL. If they don't get their act together in time, then you might be able to apply for their claim to be struck out.

Re: Cambodia etc

1) Are you domiciled in Cambodia?

2) Did you contract with the tenants through a UK agent?

3) Does the tenancy say anything about service of claims?

jeffrey
18-04-2008, 00:51 AM
Hi,

I may be ignorant but to what are the numbers 213(6) etc referring to? Where can I look up the precise wording myself?

Thanks again

Magic

Housing Act 2004. Scan for it using "Macro SEARCH" thingy at top of screen.

Magic
18-04-2008, 05:04 AM
You could offer to repay the deductions you made from their deposit in exchange for an agreement not to pursue you for the 3X deposit, but you will have to be quite skilful in how you approach them, because if you sound weak or desparate then they may scent blood......

The Small Claims court is simply the name given to the procedure used for claims of less than £5000 in the County Court. Notwithstanding the value of the claim, a Tenancy Deposit claim may or may not be a Small Claim depending on which procedure the tenants opt to use. If they opt to use a procedure known as Part 8 proceedings, these are not treated as small claims and are in fact allocated to what is known as the "Multi-Track."

Presuming it was a joint tenancy, all the tenants should claim as joint claimants. The Civil Procedure Rules r.19.3 stipulates that any person who is jointly entitled to a remedy that refuses to take part in proceedings as a joint claimant should be joined as a defendant to the action. So, if the tenants don't claim jointly, this could potentially be a bit of an advantage to you as you could make an application to have the other tenants joined as defendants and this might throw a spanner in the works if one or more of the tenants has gone AWOL. If they don't get their act together in time, then you might be able to apply for their claim to be struck out.

Re: Cambodia etc

1) Are you domiciled in Cambodia?

2) Did you contract with the tenants through a UK agent?

3) Does the tenancy say anything about service of claims?

I've sent you a private message. Is that OK? Some information is starting to get a bit sensitive.

I'm worried about them 'scenting blood' and not quite sure how to handle this.
How do they act jointly - do they have to sign forms, all be in the UK or can they act from different parts of the world?

In answer to the questions above

1. There's no such domicile status in Cambodia. However I've been living here legally for 3.5 years and I'm classed as a non-Uk resident.

2. Yes

3. No

Magic
18-04-2008, 05:06 AM
Housing Act 2004. Scan for it using "Macro SEARCH" thingy at top of screen.
I've now found the Housing Act, thanks

agent46
18-04-2008, 09:30 AM
I've sent you a private message. Is that OK? Some information is starting to get a bit sensitive.

I'm worried about them 'scenting blood' and not quite sure how to handle this.
How do they act jointly - do they have to sign forms, all be in the UK or can they act from different parts of the world?

In answer to the questions above

1. There's no such domicile status in Cambodia. However I've been living here legally for 3.5 years and I'm classed as a non-Uk resident.

2. Yes

3. No


The good news is that if the tenants wish to issue a claim against you, because you are resident out of the jurisdiction of the English courts, they will probably firstly, need the permission of the High Court, and then secondly, have to go through a whole load of grief to serve the claim via, IIRC, either UK Consular officials in Cambodia or the Foreign Process Office at the Royal Courts of Justice.

However, there might be some bad news - because it appears you contracted through a UK agent, the tenants may be able to issue the claim in the UK without requiring permission by serving it on the agents.

I suppose the best course of action is to wait and see what action the tenants take, and if they issue the claim without seeking permission, then seek specialist legal advice and possibly and hopefully apply to have the tenants' claim struck out on the grounds that they failed to follow the correct procedural rules with regard to service of claims.

There is a bit of a caveat attached to the above advice, which is that I should point out that I'm now reaching the outer limits of my knowledge and experience, so I'm not 100% sure about what I've written! Perhaps someone else on here can shed some light on that issue...? (or seek further advice)



Another question Magic. Who did the tenants pay their deposit too (as in who actually received the money)?

jeffrey
18-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Magic: where is your address for service, as notifed to T under s.3 of LTA 1985 and/or s.48 of LTA 1987?

P.Pilcher
18-04-2008, 09:46 AM
I must say that I am a bit suprised that your agent was not (apparently) conversant with the TDS procedure. (But then with the lack of agent expertese we so frequently read of here, probably not so suprised!) When I first took on a new tenant after the current deposit protection rules were introduced, I spent a lot of time with my agent's (engaged merely to find me a tenant) deposit protection expert to make certain that I was doing the job correctly. This particular individual had been on a course on the new regulations and was therefore a mine of information.

P.P.

Magic
18-04-2008, 09:53 AM
Another question Magic. Who did the tenants pay their deposit too (as in who actually received the money)?

Thanks very much again - sorry for my impatience.

The tenants paid the money to the Letting Agents in the first place. The Letting Agents then passed the money onto me. There was a fair delay in this and so by the time I managed to pay it in it was already 14 days after the tenants had moved in. (I've just checked the dates).

Magic

agent46
18-04-2008, 09:54 AM
Magic: where is your address for service, as notifed to T under s.3 of LTA 1985 and/or s.48 of LTA 1987?

Yes, I did consider that point.... So here goes - s.48 requires the tenant to provide an address for service of notices, not an address for service of claims, therefore a claim served at the s.48 address would not be deemed served. Utter hair splitting, I know, but surely worth a punt in some interlocutory skirmishing? :p

agent46
18-04-2008, 10:02 AM
Thanks very much again - sorry for my impatience.

The tenants paid the money to the Letting Agents in the first place. The Letting Agents then passed the money onto me. There was a fair delay in this and so by the time I managed to pay it in it was already 14 days after the tenants had moved in. (I've just checked the dates).

Magic

I'd have a crack at telling the tenants their claim is against the agents, on the grounds that the person who receives the deposit is the person who must comply with the TDP legislation.

Magic
18-04-2008, 10:11 AM
Yes, I did consider that point.... So here goes - s.48 requires the tenant to provide an address for service of notices, not an address for service of claims, therefore a claim served at the s.48 address would not be deemed served. Utter hair splitting, I know, but surely worth a punt in some interlocutory skirmishing? :p

This is becoming interesting. The letting agents have a UK address to which they were supposed to send the contract and the inventory but didn't, and the cheques which they weren't supposed to send there but did.

They won't post out to Cambodia and anyway I don't have a reliable address here. The tenants have my Cambodian address - but this is unreliable. I assume they could get hold of the UK address from the Letting Agents?

They mainly communicate with me by email.

Again not being a lawyer I'm a bit lost again in your section numbers and 'claims' versus 'notices'

Magic

Magic
18-04-2008, 10:14 AM
Thank you all for your help and support - you've been brilliant! I will call Jeffrey very shortly - 20 mins

agent46
18-04-2008, 10:21 AM
Again not being a lawyer I'm a bit lost again in your section numbers and 'claims' versus 'notices'

Magic

I was addressing Jeffery's post. But it was rude of me to "talk over your head" like that - sorry about that. :o

jeffrey
18-04-2008, 10:26 AM
Yes, I did consider that point.... So here goes - s.48 requires the tenant to provide an address for service of notices, not an address for service of claims, therefore a claim served at the s.48 address would not be deemed served. Utter hair splitting, I know, but surely worth a punt in some interlocutory skirmishing? :p

No. Anyway, it's L who serves on T (not T who serves on L) to provide an address under s.48!

To answer your argument, s.48 relates to "...notices (including notices in procedings)..."
Surely a Notice of Claim is a Notice?

agent46
18-04-2008, 10:34 AM
No. Anyway, it's L who serves on T (not T who serves on L) under s.48!



Yes, I see what you mean - I meant to type that, but I must have suffered a slip of the brain.

jeffrey
18-04-2008, 10:39 AM
Yes, I see what you mean - I meant to type that, but I must have suffered a slip of the brain.

Do you agree with second paragraph of my last post, though?

agent46
18-04-2008, 10:51 AM
Do you agree with second paragraph of my last post, though?

The "Notice of Claim" point?

Not sure TBH and I'm a bit bogged down at the moment to give it a great deal of thought, but I seem to recall that the CPR (and relevant to this point, Pt6) uses the term "Claim Form" rather than "Notice of Claim" in respect of issue and service, so my point is certainly arguable, although not hugely forceful. With the amount of money that may be at stake, I think it's certainly worth making the point in an application for strike out - who knows, she might get a pedantic, yet sympathetic judge!

However, I do think the tenants would get permission to serve on the agents. And I'll also give you evens that the s.48 address is the agent's address.

I still think she should make the tenants work for their judgement and with any luck, when they realise she's not an easy mark, they might just get fed up.

Magic
18-04-2008, 11:42 AM
The "Notice of Claim" point?

I still think she should make the tenants work for their judgement and with any luck, when they realise she's not an easy mark, they might just get fed up.

So agent46 - you're suggesting that I don't just pay up but sit tight?

agent46
18-04-2008, 11:50 AM
So agent46 - you're suggesting that I don't just pay up but sit tight?

Pay them the 3X the deposit at this point? Absolutely not! :eek: Just wait and see how far they go with the claim.

However, I would give some thought to approaching them to negotiate a deal where you waive the £300 deduction in exchange for them agreeing not to pursue the 3X the deposit matter.

Having said all that, if you are now being advised by Jeffery "off the board" in a professional capacity, then it wouldn't be proper for me to say anything other than follow his advice.

Worldlife
11-11-2008, 22:29 PM
Bringing excellent thread to top. It is relevant to current discussions on legal meaning of "MUST" in relation to tenant's claim for 3 x deposit for failure to place deposit in relevant TDS.