PDA

View Full Version : Can L postpone hearing re returning deposit to T?



granadaok
10-02-2009, 20:40 PM
I hope someone out there can help me in my query?

I am due to appear in Court in 2 weeks to defend myself for not returning my Tenants Deposit.As far as I am concerned it was not needed as my Tenants moved in before April 07 and did not sign another agreement.

I have given them 1/3 of their Deposit back but am within my rights to hold onto the remaining 2/3 as the inventory brought up many minor issues.

The Tenants felt the need to take me to Court for the remaining amount but I need more time in obtaining quotes for the issues to put bring the property upto the standard I feel it should have been left.

The Tenants have tried to send me ,what I am assuming ,would be some kind of Court Orders.So far I have managed to avoid accepting them, although the Postal service have left me a slip of paper informing me that I need to collect the Papers within 21 Days.Can I postpone the Hearing on the grounds I have not received the Papers?

mind the gap
10-02-2009, 21:04 PM
I hope someone out there can help me in my query?

I am due to appear in Court in 2 weeks to defend myself for not returning my Tenants Deposit.As far as I am concerned it was not needed as my Tenants moved in before April 07 and did not sign another agreement.

I have given them 1/3 of their Deposit back but am within my rights to hold onto the remaining 2/3 as the inventory brought up many minor issues.

The Tenants felt the need to take me to Court for the remaining amount but I need more time in obtaining quotes for the issues to put bring the property upto the standard I feel it should have been left.

The Tenants have tried to send me ,what I am assuming ,would be some kind of Court Orders.So far I have managed to avoid accepting them, although the Postal service have left me a slip of paper informing me that I need to collect the Papers within 21 Days.Can I postpone the Hearing on the grounds I have not received the Papers?


What's the point? This could be seen as deliberate stalling on your part.

Why don't you just collect the papers and turn up at court to defend the deductions you propose to make, if you are so sure they are fair?

If you have watertight inventories on check-in and check-out, supported by photographs showing the damage you claim the tenants have done, and receipts/invoices for any remedial work done so far, you have the important things. It should not take two weeks to get estimates for the repairs, should it? How extensively have they trashed the place?

If you do not have such evidence, (signed by the tenants on check-in at least), then you might as well just refund the whole of their deposits now without further ado, since you are very unlikey to be able to defend your case without it, and you could end up paying your own and their court costs too.

The court will need incontravertible evidence that what you are claiming for is damage , which was done by the tenants during their tenancy (which the Ts will clearly contest) and not fair wear and tear.

granadaok
10-02-2009, 21:24 PM
What's the point? This could be seen as deliberate stalling on your part.

Why don't you just collect the papers and turn up at court to defend the deductions you propose to make, if you are so sure they are fair?

If you have watertight inventories on check-in and check-out, supported by photographs showing the damage you claim the tenants have done, and receipts/invoices for any remedial work done so far, you have the important things. It should not take two weeks to get estimates for the repairs, should it? How extensively have they trashed the place?

If you do not have such evidence, (signed by the tenants on check-in at least), then you might as well just refund the whole of their deposits now without further ado, since you are very unlikey to be able to defend your case without it, and you could end up paying your own and their court costs too.

The court will need incontravertible evidence that what you are claiming for is damage , which was done by the tenants during their tenancy (which the Ts will clearly contest) and not fair wear and tear.


The Tenants had fixed speakers to the wall of one of the rooms and had hung Pictures in another room.They filled and sanded the holes and painted over them but I still feel they are far too visable and wish to have the walls repainted properly and not just covered up as they have attempted. They have stated they will repaint the walls.I am not willing for them to do this.I fail to see why I should allow this to happen. Instead they have issued proceedings against me.I do not wish to receive the Papers as it is rediculous that they have been allowed to continue with this farce. They had a deadline on which to send me the Papers and I now understand they have missed the deadline as I do not have the Papers. Im hopeful the Judge will see that this matter will be a waste of the Courts time.

mind the gap
10-02-2009, 21:32 PM
The Tenants had fixed speakers to the wall of one of the rooms and had hung Pictures in another room.They filled and sanded the holes and painted over them but I still feel they are far too visable and wish to have the walls repainted properly and not just covered up as they have attempted. They have stated they will repaint the walls.I am not willing for them to do this.I fail to see why I should allow this to happen.. For you to insist on totally redecorating the room when they have already restored it may well be seen as 'betterment' and your claim would in all likeliehood be thrown out. Presumably all you need to do is re-sand and touch up the paintwork. The cost of doing that does not reasonably equate to two thirds of a tenancy deposit and the court would see your claim as being overinflated at the very best.


Instead they have issued proceedings against me.I do not wish to receive the Papers as it is rediculous that they have been allowed to continue with this farce. They had a deadline on which to send me the Papers and I now understand they have missed the deadline as I do not have the Papers. Im hopeful the Judge will see that this matter will be a waste of the Courts time.
It may well be sen as a waste of the court's time, but not in the way you anticipate. They have served papers - they will have proof of this - and you have been informed that you need to pick them up. You are hoping to rely on a technicality to avoid this particular court hearing, but they will get you there eventually, even if there is a delay. Given what I have said above about the validity of your claim, the judge may well sympathise with the tenants and order you to pay their deposit back in full plus costs.

It's your choice!

house275
10-02-2009, 21:39 PM
:eek: wow im glad your not my landlord
Your stance seems very one sided


How do you reach the 2/3 rd's is yours figure ?b

mind the gap
10-02-2009, 21:44 PM
:wow im glad your not my landlord
Your stance seems very one sided


How do you reach the 2/3 rd's is yours figure ?b

Everyone knows that it costs hundreds and hundreds of pounds to re-emulsion two small sections of wall:rolleyes:

granadaok
10-02-2009, 21:51 PM
The Tenants are representing themselves whereas I have stated on my Counterclaim that a Solicitor is acting for me.I also named them on the Forms. I may not have been completely honest with this point.I did seek advise from a Law firm who advised I reduce my Counterclaim.I did not agree with this advise and they will not be acting for me.I was hopeful that the Tenants would see I have a very good Law firm behind me and would drop the proceedings. How can I appear in Court when I have falsely claimed I have Legal backing? As far as I am aware the Tenants have not sent papers to the Firm as I did state in my Counterclaim I wanted ALL Documents sent to myself.It appears I have got the rules confused.I was under the impression the Papers had to be in my Hand.

granadaok
10-02-2009, 21:53 PM
:eek: wow im glad your not my landlord
Your stance seems very one sided


How do you reach the 2/3 rd's is yours figure ?b

I am having the whole house repainted! They have left sticker marks on one of the bedroom doors that will need to be taken off and repainted!

agent46
10-02-2009, 23:01 PM
The Tenants are representing themselves whereas I have stated on my Counterclaim that a Solicitor is acting for me.I also named them on the Forms. I may not have been completely honest with this point.

Did you see the little declaration at the foot of the form? It's called a Statement of Truth and signing it in the knowledge that the form contains false information is an offence (contempt of court). Therefore, quite apart from the fact that you might get into trouble with the Police, the judge will take a very, very dim view of this and will assess your credibility at something approaching zero and you will lose the case and also very probably have substantial costs awarded against you. Not only that, but if you give the same evidence under oath, you will be committing yet another criminal offence (perjury and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice)


I did seek advise from a Law firm who advised I reduce my Counterclaim.I did not agree with this advise and they will not be acting for me.

That was a serious misjudgement on your part.


I was hopeful that the Tenants would see I have a very good Law firm behind me and would drop the proceedings.

Your bluff failed and you should settle the case asap.


How can I appear in Court when I have falsely claimed I have Legal backing?

You cannot and should not. See above.


It appears I have got the rules confused.I was under the impression the Papers had to be in my Hand.

If you successfully avoid service, then if the case proceeds in your absence, the tenants will almost certainly obtain judgement in their favour, which they can enforce against you. If you subsequently apply to have this judgement set aside on the grounds that you did not know about the hearing, then you will be heading off down the same road as before (ie: making false statements of truth, giving perjured evidence) etc.

In summary, you have very llittle chance of success, and should throw the towel in before too many further costs are added to the claim and/or you have some stern men in funny hats knocking on your door at 5 O' Clock in the morning.

If you want a contemporary example of a situation where someone ignored and/or dismissed their legal team and ran their own case based (so The Crown will allege, members of The Jury) on false evidence, then just look to the trouble Tommy Sheridan has potentially got himself into: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3060233.ece

Paul Gibbs
11-02-2009, 09:42 AM
As stated above you should not have indicated that a solicitor is representing you when he is not. You can write to the court and the T and indicate that you are now acting in person - tthis means you can then attend at the hearing and represent yourself.

I would suggest looking to settle the case and maybe phone the tenants and discuss things - this is usually more productive than letters.

Arl
11-02-2009, 10:05 AM
It seems to me that you have not communicated your high expectations well enough at the start of the tenancy. I would be happy that the tenants had made an attempt to close up the holes and accept repainting of walls as falling under general wear and tear. Unfortunately you may be seen as the one being unreasonable and wasting the Courts time.

agent46
11-02-2009, 10:22 AM
As stated above you should not have indicated that a solicitor is representing you when he is not. You can write to the court and the T and indicate that you are now acting in person - tthis means you can then attend at the hearing and represent yourself.

.

However, his problem is not so much one of representation from here on in, but of signing a SoT when the information given above it was false. What if the tenants have cottoned on to the deception and the truth comes out in Court?

If I were him, I'd drop this case like a hot stone.

Paul Gibbs
11-02-2009, 12:05 PM
However, his problem is not so much one of representation from here on in, but of signing a SoT when the information given above it was false. What if the tenants have cottoned on to the deception and the truth comes out in Court?

If I were him, I'd drop this case like a hot stone.

True, however, if he is insistent on proceeding then a notice of change will allow him to represent himself.

The real issue is that IIRC by him saying he has solicitors then any documents served on them are deemed valid service. Also query whether the solicitors are put on the court record as acting because of OP's actions (I think they are) so that there is an obligation on them to either attend or apply to come off record. I doubt they would be too happy either way and may claim the costs of such work from OP.

granadaok
11-02-2009, 20:14 PM
[QUOTE=agent46;118043]Did you see the little declaration at the foot of the form? It's called a Statement of Truth and signing it in the knowledge that the form contains false information is an offence (contempt of court). Therefore, quite apart from the fact that you might get into trouble with the Police, the judge will take a very, very dim view of this and will assess your credibility at something approaching zero and you will lose the case and also very probably have substantial costs awarded against you. Not only that, but if you give the same evidence under oath, you will be committing yet another criminal offence (perjury and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice)



I will look at the link,Thankyou.

I did not sign the Declaration on either my Witness Statement or my Counterclaim.

I did not fill in the Court form that required you to add your Solicitors name.I mmearly added their details to the Front of my Statement.

granadaok
11-02-2009, 20:17 PM
It seems to me that you have not communicated your high expectations well enough at the start of the tenancy. I would be happy that the tenants had made an attempt to close up the holes and accept repainting of walls as falling under general wear and tear. Unfortunately you may be seen as the one being unreasonable and wasting the Courts time.

I feel I was misled by these Tenants and their previous LL who provided me with a referance for them.The LL told me that in 3 years they had been the perfect Tenants.

granadaok
11-02-2009, 20:21 PM
As stated above you should not have indicated that a solicitor is representing you when he is not. You can write to the court and the T and indicate that you are now acting in person - tthis means you can then attend at the hearing and represent yourself.

I would suggest looking to settle the case and maybe phone the tenants and discuss things - this is usually more productive than letters.

I Thankyou for your advice, but I will not be talking to these Tenants.All they have done since they left the Property last year is harass me for the remaining Deposit. They will not give me their Home address and until they do I will not be giving in to their demands.

house275
11-02-2009, 20:36 PM
Isopropol alcohol will remove sticker marks £3 a can
Zam sponge wipers £1 poundland will clean up any marks on paintwork

I think you are being very silly & if it gets to court I think the judge will find you have been unreasonable

For the sake of a tenners worth of paint and a few hours work ! you will may pay dearly

You came and asked for advice but despite the wealth of experience here you wish to disregard the people who have tried to help you
I find that a shame as posters have made valid points

granadaok
12-02-2009, 08:41 AM
Isopropol alcohol will remove sticker marks £3 a can
Zam sponge wipers £1 poundland will clean up any marks on paintwork

I think you are being very silly & if it gets to court I think the judge will find you have been unreasonable

For the sake of a tenners worth of paint and a few hours work ! you will may pay dearly

You came and asked for advice but despite the wealth of experience here you wish to disregard the people who have tried to help you
I find that a shame as posters have made valid points

I can only apologise.Im sorry. I Do not wish to attend Court but I also feel that my Ex T's are doing this purely to vindicate me.They have stated that they would be willing to seek publicity. Again I apologise

jeffrey
12-02-2009, 10:49 AM
I can only apologise.Im sorry. I Do not wish to attend Court but I also feel that my Ex T's are doing this purely to vindicate* me.They have stated that they would be willing to seek publicity. Again I apologise
*: which would mean that you were right. You presumably meant "victimise" or "vilify".

granadaok
12-02-2009, 14:39 PM
*: which would mean that you were right. You presumably meant "victimise" or "vilify".


The T were insistant I complete the repairs within a couple of weeks of them informing me of the problems.I have a very busy life.The heating failed on numourous occasions but I warned the Tenants that they should not have the heating above 20C.They asked for safety certificates.I had provided one at the beginning of the Tenancy.

They said they needed the heating on a little higher as they had a Premature baby.If they wanted to live in a "Hot House" they could have brought a heater.They refused to do this saying it would leave them liable for Breach of Tenancy. Of Course,The boiler packed up and they were without heating.They tried to imply it was my fault as the heating was not fit for purpose. They called the Enviromental Health Department who hazard rated the Property and gave me a far too strict time frame in order to complete the repairs.They gave a long list of issues with the Property and seemed to suggest it was not fit for young Persons to remain.I didnt force the Tenants to remain.Of course the EH sided with the T. It was felt I was the one who had breached the T agreement. I felt the best option would be to evict them. It was claimed this was inlawful.

Im told a Childrens Charity is supporting their Claim.It is these People who have hinted they will seek Publicity to high-light the Dangers of some rental Properties for Young Familes. I am a Parent with 2 Children and I am very busy.If the problems were that much a an issue they should have repaired them themselves and not harrass me as they did for close to One year.

jta
12-02-2009, 14:56 PM
If the heating system was in such a state that it broke down above 20 degrees it probably needed replacing. You seem to making a rod for your own back. EH don't 'side' with anybody, they have a job to do and they do it. Whatever personal problems you have, if you are going to be a LL you have to do it properly.

Paul Gibbs
12-02-2009, 15:15 PM
EH have set standards. If they served an abatement notice on you then it is correct to say that you were in breach of the tenancy agreement and that repairs needed to be effected.

if you had not effected the repairs Eh would have done the work and then billed you for their work.

If T had got repairs done and sought to take it out of the rent would you have objected? T may also have been busy and not have time to deal with repairs that are the L's responsibility.

A LL chasing T for rent is not harassment, nor is T chasing LL for deposit IMO

I am concerned that you maybe heading for a difficult court hearing!

mind the gap
12-02-2009, 15:55 PM
The T were insistant I complete the repairs within a couple of weeks of them informing me of the problems.I have a very busy life.The heating failed on numourous occasions but I warned the Tenants that they should not have the heating above 20C.They asked for safety certificates.I had provided one at the beginning of the Tenancy.

They said they needed the heating on a little higher as they had a Premature baby.If they wanted to live in a "Hot House" they could have brought a heater.They refused to do this saying it would leave them liable for Breach of Tenancy. Of Course,The boiler packed up and they were without heating.They tried to imply it was my fault as the heating was not fit for purpose. They called the Enviromental Health Department who hazard rated the Property and gave me a far too strict time frame in order to complete the repairs.They gave a long list of issues with the Property and seemed to suggest it was not fit for young Persons to remain.I didnt force the Tenants to remain.Of course the EH sided with the T. It was felt I was the one who had breached the T agreement. I felt the best option would be to evict them. It was claimed this was inlawful.

Im told a Childrens Charity is supporting their Claim.It is these People who have hinted they will seek Publicity to high-light the Dangers of some rental Properties for Young Familes. I am a Parent with 2 Children and I am very busy.If the problems were that much a an issue they should have repaired them themselves and not harrass me as they did for close to One year.

This gets worse, doesn't it?

I can well understand why your tenants are keen to see you in court.

By your own admission you have failed in your statutory duty as a Landlord and I think you have shown about as much 'human kindness' as the average single-celled organism. You keep repeating that you are 'a busy person'. Tough. So are most of us, but we still manage our rental properties efficiently. If you can't do it, pay someone else to. If you can't afford to do that, don't be a landlord.

Unless your post is a bizarre hoax (which I still think it might be), then it serves to illustrate why landlords should perhaps be licensed before being let loose on tenants.

agent46
12-02-2009, 16:07 PM
The T were insistant I complete the repairs within a couple of weeks of them informing me of the problems.I have a very busy life.The heating failed on numourous occasions but I warned the Tenants that they should not have the heating above 20C.They asked for safety certificates.I had provided one at the beginning of the Tenancy.

They said they needed the heating on a little higher as they had a Premature baby.If they wanted to live in a "Hot House" they could have brought a heater.They refused to do this saying it would leave them liable for Breach of Tenancy. Of Course,The boiler packed up and they were without heating.They tried to imply it was my fault as the heating was not fit for purpose. They called the Enviromental Health Department who hazard rated the Property and gave me a far too strict time frame in order to complete the repairs.They gave a long list of issues with the Property and seemed to suggest it was not fit for young Persons to remain.I didnt force the Tenants to remain.Of course the EH sided with the T. It was felt I was the one who had breached the T agreement. I felt the best option would be to evict them. It was claimed this was inlawful.

Im told a Childrens Charity is supporting their Claim.It is these People who have hinted they will seek Publicity to high-light the Dangers of some rental Properties for Young Familes. I am a Parent with 2 Children and I am very busy.If the problems were that much a an issue they should have repaired them themselves and not harrass me as they did for close to One year.


So let's just get this straight.

Your statement of truth was in fact false (or perhaps, it seems, you just did not sign it at all), you are trying to avoid service of Court papers but if you are not successful you plan to represent yourself at the hearing, in which you intend to run a counterclaim without any, or any adequate supporting evidence, which, incidentally, will also involve impugning both the impartiality and susbstantive findings of an Environmental Health Officer. Moreover, the tenants will claim (with, it seems, some justification) that the heating was out of repair and thus put their premature baby at risk and your defence to this element of their claim will be, "I was busy".

Good luck - you will almost certainly need it!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mkKBrYmWL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

jta
12-02-2009, 16:15 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mkKBrYmWL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

'twere that true, it'd be the first bit o' pity you shown any of us. :p

Poppy
12-02-2009, 16:22 PM
For goodness sake granadaok, stop digging yourself into a hole. To my mind you've got no chance of successfully defending this court action, based on your posts so far. Simply return the balance of the deposit money right now.

If you let it get as far as going to court, do be sure to let us know how you got on. :eek:

mind the gap
12-02-2009, 16:37 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mkKBrYmWL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

It's that haircut I'm intrigued by. Can't think what it reminds me of.

MrJohnnyB
12-02-2009, 17:27 PM
They have left sticker marks on one of the bedroom doors that will need to be taken off and repainted!

I find with sticker marks a bit of water seems to be a good way round it. I wouldnt be too impressed if i had been living at a property for over two years paying the rent promptly and a landlord was being as you are, particularly if I had actually make some proper efforts to repair the damage caused.

house275
12-02-2009, 18:17 PM
Troll surely ?

If not OMG

granadaok
12-02-2009, 18:45 PM
If the heating system was in such a state that it broke down above 20 degrees it probably needed replacing. You seem to making a rod for your own back. EH don't 'side' with anybody, they have a job to do and they do it. Whatever personal problems you have, if you are going to be a LL you have to do it properly.

It did need replacing ,yes.But the Tenants knew it was an old heating systum when they moved into the Property.They had lived in the property for 6 Months before it failed the first time. I had a repair man in within 3 days. Then 2 weeks later they are complaining that it had failed again. These Tenants always insisted on doing things by the Tenacy agreement. Yet they were not supposed to let me into the Property to do an inspection without 24 hrs notice.But I could call them in the Morning and they would allow me access immediately.Do I then sue them for not keeping to the agreement?

granadaok
12-02-2009, 18:49 PM
This gets worse, doesn't it?

I can well understand why your tenants are keen to see you in court.

By your own admission you have failed in your statutory duty as a Landlord and I think you have shown about as much 'human kindness' as the average single-celled organism. You keep repeating that you are 'a busy person'. Tough. So are most of us, but we still manage our rental properties efficiently. If you can't do it, pay someone else to. If you can't afford to do that, don't be a landlord.

Unless your post is a bizarre hoax (which I still think it might be), then it serves to illustrate why landlords should perhaps be licensed before being let loose on tenants.

Why on earth would anyone bother to come to a forum for advice when it is a hoax! What on earth wuld be the point. The Tenants saw a first time LL and decided to take me for a ride. I wish this was a Hoax because I would not have to be dealing with People like these Tenants.

granadaok
12-02-2009, 18:51 PM
EH have set standards. If they served an abatement notice on you then it is correct to say that you were in breach of the tenancy agreement and that repairs needed to be effected.

if you had not effected the repairs Eh would have done the work and then billed you for their work.

If T had got repairs done and sought to take it out of the rent would you have objected? T may also have been busy and not have time to deal with repairs that are the L's responsibility.

A LL chasing T for rent is not harassment, nor is T chasing LL for deposit IMO

I am concerned that you maybe heading for a difficult court hearing!

The Tenants did request that they complete the repairs and they also wanted to put in a new heating systum.They asked that I paid half towards this. BUT the heating would have been fine as long as they kept it no higher that 20C!

granadaok
12-02-2009, 18:52 PM
For goodness sake granadaok, stop digging yourself into a hole. To my mind you've got no chance of successfully defending this court action, based on your posts so far. Simply return the balance of the deposit money right now.

If you let it get as far as going to court, do be sure to let us know how you got on. :eek:

Thankyou.I will.

granadaok
12-02-2009, 18:55 PM
Troll surely ?

If not OMG

TROLL! I am answering any questions Honesty.What on earth do Trolls have to do with my case?

jta
12-02-2009, 19:36 PM
The Tenants did request that they complete the repairs and they also wanted to put in a new heating systum.They asked that I paid half towards this. BUT the heating would have been fine as long as they kept it no higher that 20C!

They offered to pay half towards it!!!! You are obviously living in a different world to the rest of us. The heating system was stuffed, it was your responsibility to repair/replace it. But you were too stingy to keep your property in good order. Now you are moaning about the tenants making what sounds like a perfectly legitimate claim against you. And we have only heard your side of the story

agent46
12-02-2009, 19:46 PM
BUT the heating would have been fine as long as they kept it no higher that 20C!


(1) The fact that the central heating failed whenever the room thermostat was set above 20 degrees strongly suggests that some part of the system was faulty. As such, you were in breach of your repairing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11.

(2) 20 degrees isn't actually that warm at all, especially for a new mother (who tend to spend lots of time immobile). It certainly isn't warm enough for a premature baby. It is 22 degrees in my room at the moment, and I feel quite chilly (especially my feet).

(3) In any case, I tend to find that room thermostats are wildly inaccurate. For example, as I type this, my room stat is set at 27 degrees, but the thermometer on the wall reads 22 degrees. I have come across similar inaccuracies and as a rule, room stats need to be set higher than the required temperature.

(4) In summary, you had no legally defensible grounds for setting such an unreasonable limit on the tenant's use of the heating system and it was your breach of an obligation to keep the central heating system in repair, not the tenants' misuse of the system, that caused the failures.


Despite having taken the time to post all the above, I have a very strong feeling indeed that you are going to ignore my advice, and the advice posted by others in this thread. A part of me actually hopes that you do, because the rude awakening you will almost certainly receive at the hands of the courts is probably just what you need.

jta
12-02-2009, 19:51 PM
Yeah, what he said, me too. ^^^^

jta
12-02-2009, 19:52 PM
Yeah, what he said, me too. ^^^^:mad:

Impartial Advice
13-02-2009, 09:03 AM
Wow... I'm pretty much speechless after reading through this thread.

It appears licencing for landlords can't come soon enough!!!

Without going into all the details (i'm to busy:p) you have a 0% chance of any successful claim against your tenants and are likely to be receiving a nasty shock in court. Just give them back the deposit and do some research into housing law before thinking of renting again.....

granadaok
13-02-2009, 15:19 PM
Wow... I'm pretty much speechless after reading through this thread.

It appears licencing for landlords can't come soon enough!!!

Without going into all the details (i'm to busy:p) you have a 0% chance of any successful claim against your tenants and are likely to be receiving a nasty shock in court. Just give them back the deposit and do some research into housing law before thinking of renting again.....


I do feel I have just as good a chance as the Tenants! All of the other matters have been dealt with out of Court.They can not be brought up in any further proceedings! I stand as good as chance as my Tenants of a positive outcome in Court.If they bring up any of the past events I will of course have them back in Court for Breach of the Agreement.This remains a case of them not leaving the Property as they should have done.Thankyou!

agent46
13-02-2009, 15:38 PM
I do feel I have just as good a chance as the Tenants! ......

You are entitled to your "feelings", but my professional knowledge and experience (and that of others on here) causes me to come to the opposite conclusion. You have very poor chances of achieving a successful outcome, and in fact, if you don't choose your words carefully when dealing with "judicial intervention", you might possibly get yourself into trouble with the criminal law as well.


This remains a case of them not leaving the Property as they should have done.

Good luck explaining your falsified and/or unsigned Court papers and Statement of Truth, your inflated counterclaim and the absence of any supporting evidence! :rolleyes:

mind the gap
13-02-2009, 15:44 PM
I do feel I have just as good a chance as the Tenants! All of the other matters have been dealt with out of Court.They can not be brought up in any further proceedings! I stand as good as chance as my Tenants of a positive outcome in Court.If they bring up any of the past events I will of course have them back in Court for Breach of the Agreement.This remains a case of them not leaving the Property as they should have done.Thankyou!

Have you always had this impulse towards self-destruction?

And are you real, or a character from tragi-comedy? I'm sure there is a 1950s French play in the Absurdist tradition with a guy in it just like you, but I cannot recall the title. He just ploughs on regardless towards certain disaster, ignoring sound advice and the chance to turn back, as he heads towards his fate...his reasons for doing so are the comic element.

Or perhaps you are Macbeth,
'...[in blood] already steppe'd so far
Returning were as tedious as go 'er'?

I would like a ticket to watch this court case!

nb: I in no way wish to suggest you are guilty of any crime involving real blood. I quote the lines for the purposes of my analogy only. (I have to say this, because the last time I pointed out something as innnocent as a homophone spelling error in a post, the OP assumed I was accusing him of being homophobic. You can't be too careful these days...)

islandgirl
13-02-2009, 16:06 PM
Coriolanus - hubris?

mind the gap
13-02-2009, 16:11 PM
Coriolanus - hubris?

Him 'n all! Deffo.

garner86
13-02-2009, 16:23 PM
dead man walking!

susanne
15-02-2009, 13:35 PM
i cannot believe that any LL with half an ounce of compassion could behave so appallingly towards tenants with a tiny baby - you should be ashamed of yourself -

you give the rest of us a bad name

you come across as selfish, bitter, arrogant, anal and uncaring - i hope you lose in court

Mars Mug
15-02-2009, 16:03 PM
The room thermostat of a central heating system is just a temperature controlled switch. This means that all it will do is either turn the heating on or off depending on the room temperature. It will not run the heating at a lower temperature if the setting is low, it will just turn the heating on less frequently, or not at all if the setting it too low. So in this case the setting of 20 degrees would probably mean that the heating would not turn on at all during the times set by the heating timer.

It sounds to me like the heating was completely faulty, and setting a low thermostat temperature was a way to prevent the heating turning on and subsequently failing. This is a shameful way for a landlord to treat a tenant.

I wonder if we will hear of the outcome of the court case?

Teapot
15-02-2009, 17:00 PM
I am abhorred by the admission of fraudulent (perhaps even criminal) behaviour by the OP on this thread; it is being printed as I type.

Unbelieveable.

jta
15-02-2009, 17:05 PM
So, are you going to tell us why you're printing it? Are you going to publish it, or do you just want something to read on a cold winter's night?

Teapot
15-02-2009, 17:57 PM
I work in a county court

johnboy
15-02-2009, 18:06 PM
granadaok when is the court case? I will pay to come in and watch.
I am sure a few other forum members will as well which may off-set what it will cost you.

Any other takers for a ticket? Maybe we can get a mini bus organised I will do the sandwichs if someone else supplies the beer and Pims for agent 46:D

jta
15-02-2009, 18:14 PM
I work in a county court

What are you going to do with the print-out? Is it just for amusement, or what?

granadaok
15-02-2009, 20:36 PM
What are you going to do with the print-out? Is it just for amusement, or what?

I have not been able to reply to all.It may not even reach Court.I have the Mediator from the Court telephoning me tomorrow at the request of the Tenant. Im told this call will last an hour and the Tenant will be part of the call. My Letting Agent has told me that the call would be recorded. I fail to see why they would bother but LA feels I should go ahead with this call.

I think that this may show that the T do not wish this to go to Court either.

Teapot
15-02-2009, 21:34 PM
I have not been able to reply to all.It may not even reach Court.I have the Mediator from the Court telephoning me tomorrow at the request of the Tenant. Im told this call will last an hour and the Tenant will be part of the call. My Letting Agent has told me that the call would be recorded. I fail to see why they would bother but LA feels I should go ahead with this call.

I think that this may show that the T do not wish this to go to Court either.

Sounds like a sensible way forward for all parties, then. Just try and come across as reasonable during the call and I am sure a fair decision will result.

Good luck.

Mars Mug
15-02-2009, 21:35 PM
I think that this may show that the T do not wish this to go to Court either.

That may well be the case, but if I were the disgruntled tenant with little to lose I would be interested in what you have to say. I would suggest that you choose your words carefully and eat some humble pie, it may well be cheaper for you that way.

Preston
15-02-2009, 21:55 PM
I have not been able to reply to all.It may not even reach Court.I have the Mediator from the Court telephoning me tomorrow at the request of the Tenant. Im told this call will last an hour and the Tenant will be part of the call. My Letting Agent has told me that the call would be recorded. I fail to see why they would bother but LA feels I should go ahead with this call.

I think that this may show that the T do not wish this to go to Court either.

Hi

I am sure you are a fair and reasaonble person. My guess is that either:

a) you are "playing" with us all a little and that you are not actually as unreasonable as you seem or
b) you have been a little taken aback by the strength of some of the views expressed here and are feeling a bit defensive. Perhaps there are details that are important to you that you feel we haven't properly taken into account.

Either way, its still not too late. If you take a reasonable approach you will, more than likely, come out of this with a reasonable outcome.

I hope you will let us know what happens.

Preston

granadaok
16-02-2009, 11:19 AM
It will be proceeding to Court! The T were not willing to accept anything less than the full amount.They told the Mediator that as they have been able to show that they have spent a year trying to reach a solution and I still will not budge they wish to proceed to Court.They did offer to drop the Interest Charges.They said that "things in my statement" concern them. I think I have shown that I have tried to stop the proccedings by trying to negotiate but they would not not even try!

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 11:45 AM
It will be proceeding to Court! The T were not willing to accept anything less than the full amount.They told the Mediator that as they have been able to show that they have spent a year trying to reach a solution and I still will not budge they wish to proceed to Court.They did offer to drop the Interest Charges.They said that "things in my statement" concern them. I think I have shown that I have tried to stop the proccedings by trying to negotiate but they would not not even try!

With the greatest of respect (although I still think you may be a troll), it would appear that you have taken leave of your senses. Unless there are any clinical psychiatrists out there on LLZ, I think you have probably exhausted our means to help you.

I am unable to wish you good luck since I do not think you should win, but I wish you good judgement.

Mars Mug
16-02-2009, 12:22 PM
.... but I wish you good judgement.

I tried that a few posts up and failed miserably :rolleyes:

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 12:26 PM
I tried that a few posts up and failed miserably :rolleyes:

I have lost all faith in OP's power to exercise 'good judgement'; I was referring to the judge's!

MaryQK
16-02-2009, 13:44 PM
This has to be a wind up. Surely.

sherifffatman
16-02-2009, 14:58 PM
Has anyone booked the minibus yet?!
It is all about being reasonable - reasonable damages, reasonable wear & tear, reasonable retention, reasonable LL during tenancy, reasonable T during tenancy...
This blaggery will get you nowhere as the courts are v likely to side with the 'poor' tenants, whatever your opinion.
Repainting the whole house?! Are you mental or just greedy?!
Seriously, get out now or return it all but the £20 it will cost to sort.
If they have already made willing to repair and you never stated in AST or writing what state you wanted it to be returned in and have no proof of any of it then you are well on the way to a severe fine, esp if the EH and charities are involved.
Look at how Shelter got the deposit scheme on the statute books!
That and the boiler problem, tbh you're buggered.
Keep us informed & good luck!

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 15:02 PM
Keep us informed & good luck!

Did you wish him 'good luck' because you think he deserves to win?

granadaok
16-02-2009, 15:03 PM
This has to be a wind up. Surely.

I wish this were!!

For the sake of Clarity.I signed the Court papers but did not send my T a signed copy of the forms!! I named the Solicitors on the front of my Defence but have at no point named them on the N9 form.I have requested that all the Court forms are sent to me..Therefore I have not stated they are acting for me.I have merely suggested they helped me fill out the Counterclaim by naming on them on the front.I have called the Court who have said I could possible be allowed to do this as they did help me draw up some points of my defense.The fact I sent my T a copy of the Defence which is not a true copy of the one I sent to the Court seems to now be raising an issue! Now in view of these points Can somebody Please see things from my point of View.These T will pick holes in the most Minor of details.THEY were the ones who would not negotiate this morning! THEY ended the call.

sherifffatman
16-02-2009, 15:03 PM
no mtg, because he deffo needs it!

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 15:05 PM
This has to be a wind up. Surely.

I think there are various features of the language use and presentation in the posts which suggest you may be correct.

garner86
16-02-2009, 15:08 PM
THEY were the ones who would not negotiate this morning! THEY ended the call.


I wouldn't try to negotiate with a mugger in the street. Your trying to rob these people blind!

gdturn
16-02-2009, 17:55 PM
These Tenants... were not supposed to let me into the Property to do an inspection without 24 hrs notice.But I could call them in the Morning and they would allow me access immediately.Do I then sue them for not keeping to the agreement?

Most amusing, troll. :p

granadaok
16-02-2009, 19:38 PM
Most amusing, troll. :p

This is not the First reference to a TROLL!!! Would somebody please explain this??

I have been truthful and honest in my replies.I have been ridiculed!!

granadaok
16-02-2009, 19:39 PM
i wish this were!!

For the sake of clarity.i signed the court papers but did not send my t a signed copy of the forms!! I named the solicitors on the front of my defence but have at no point named them on the n9 form.i have requested that all the court forms are sent to me..therefore i have not stated they are acting for me.i have merely suggested they helped me fill out the counterclaim by naming on them on the front.i have called the court who have said i could possible be allowed to do this as they did help me draw up some points of my defense.the fact i sent my t a copy of the defence which is not a true copy of the one i sent to the court seems to now be raising an issue! Now in view of these points can somebody please see things from my point of view.these t will pick holes in the most minor of details.they were the ones who would not negotiate this morning! They ended the call.

this is honesty!!! Am i to assume that you still think i have done wrong!?!?!

Mars Mug
16-02-2009, 19:47 PM
This is not the First reference to a TROLL!!! Would somebody please explain this??

I have been truthful and honest in my replies.I have been ridiculed!!

It’s because people find what you have admitted to saying and doing to be quite incredible. You think you are in the right, and based on only what you have posted here I don’t think anyone has yet agreed with anything you have said. If you really have detailed and explained everything, the experienced landlords here find what you have said to be outrageous, and that’s without hearing the tenant’s side of the story, then maybe you should be a little more concerned about the direction this could go.

jta
16-02-2009, 19:48 PM
Ok, in simple language, you have been answered by a variety of members here, they have included at least one barrister (a real one) several solicitors, again real ones, several other landlords and professionals in the letting business, and me. Without exception, we are all horrified by the picture you have painted of yourself. You have come across as somebody who has not the slightest idea of what you are doing. Every piece of advice you have had here is to drop this ill advised matter. You have taken no notice of anyone. If, and I say again, If you are not a troll, then you, sir, are an idiot.

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 19:55 PM
Ok, in simple language, you have been answered by a variety of members here, they have included at least one barrister (a real one) several solicitors, again real ones, several other landlords and professionals in the letting business, and me. Without exception, we are all horrified by the picture you have painted of yourself. You have come across as somebody who has not the slightest idea of what you are doing. Every piece of advice you have had here is to drop this ill advised matter. You have taken no notice of anyone. If, and I say again, If you are not a troll, then you, sir, are an idiot.

Absolutely, jta. But some of the seeds will always fall on stony ground....

jta
16-02-2009, 20:11 PM
It feels like I'm bangin' me 'ead against a brick wall! :mad:

mind the gap
16-02-2009, 20:15 PM
It feels like I'm bangin' me 'ead against a brick wall! :mad:


Which may well be exactly what this person is hoping to achieve.

I think he's had his money's worth of advice/wasted time out of us all now, and to continue posting our comments may just feed his apparently pathological attention 'habit'.

Fancy online Scrabble instead, jta?

Ericthelobster
16-02-2009, 20:22 PM
This is not the First reference to a TROLL!!! Would somebody please explain this??At the risk of falling into a trap: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) though sad to say, I don't actually think you are one.

Perhaps we need a poll on the subject :rolleyes:

jta
16-02-2009, 20:30 PM
Fancy online Scrabble instead, jta?

A good idea, but I fancy Jeffrey would beat the pants off both of us.

granadaok
16-02-2009, 21:31 PM
A good idea, but I fancy Jeffrey would beat the pants off both of us.

I am not a time waster.I am not a troll.I am a LL who had problems with their T.The T threatened to take me to court for a Number of issues which they felt were breaches of the Tenancy agreement.An out of Court settlement was reached.They would leave the property if i paid them a sum of Money and in return they would not take any further action against me for these issues which they felt were breaches.This was all arranged through Solicitors.I do NOT feel that my Solicitor fought my Corner hard enough.He advised me to just pay up and agree to settle out of Court.Within weeks of leaving they were demanding their Deposit back.I have already covered the reasoning in my post on here. They have already taken me for a ride once.Now the Advice is that I should let them do it to me again? Does the Evidance surely not suggest that they have had Court action on the agenda since they took up the Tenancy.I paid out of Court and here they are Taking me to court!!.If noone can see even sympathise just a little I will trouble you no more.Thankyou

granadaok
16-02-2009, 21:34 PM
At the risk of falling into a trap: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) though sad to say, I don't actually think you are one.

Perhaps we need a poll on the subject :rolleyes:

Thankyou for the explanation.I am not a troll. I have posted my Final explanation.I thankyou all for your help.

sherifffatman
16-02-2009, 22:00 PM
I am not a time waster.I am not a troll.I am a LL who had problems with their T.The T threatened to take me to court for a Number of issues which they felt were breaches of the Tenancy agreement.An out of Court settlement was reached.They would leave the property if i paid them a sum of Money and in return they would not take any further action against me for these issues which they felt were breaches.This was all arranged through Solicitors.I do NOT feel that my Solicitor fought my Corner hard enough.He advised me to just pay up and agree to settle out of Court.Within weeks of leaving they were demanding their Deposit back.I have already covered the reasoning in my post on here. They have already taken me for a ride once.Now the Advice is that I should let them do it to me again? Does the Evidance surely not suggest that they have had Court action on the agenda since they took up the Tenancy.I paid out of Court and here they are Taking me to court!!.If noone can see even sympathise just a little I will trouble you no more.Thankyou

This does put a slightly different spin on it, though if your solicitor has seen fit to accept that you pay a certain amount to stop them claiming against you it probably means that you are substantially in the wrong re the tenancy breaches. I presume this is related to the heating problem.
Did the T sign anything saying this was a full & final settlement and what for?
The deposit is separate to the rent and is essentially the T's money, not yours.
Your attempt to mislead the T re claim/solicitors, the previous claim & settlement & involvement of the charities mentioned and the admitted inflation of deposit claim means you are on quicksand in court.
Give the money back and go on a letting (& spelling) course.
Or keep on with your head in the sand and tell us where and when the hearing is!

Mars Mug
16-02-2009, 22:08 PM
So there was an out of court settlement in relation to the tenancy, but you had it in mind that you could recover your losses by keeping the deposit? This tale doesn’t get any better does it?

granadaok
17-02-2009, 08:19 AM
This does put a slightly different spin on it, though if your solicitor has seen fit to accept that you pay a certain amount to stop them claiming against you it probably means that you are substantially in the wrong re the tenancy breaches. I presume this is related to the heating problem.
Did the T sign anything saying this was a full & final settlement and what for?
The deposit is separate to the rent and is essentially the T's money, not yours.
Your attempt to mislead the T re claim/solicitors, the previous claim & settlement & involvement of the charities mentioned and the admitted inflation of deposit claim means you are on quicksand in court.
Give the money back and go on a letting (& spelling) course.
Or keep on with your head in the sand and tell us where and when the hearing is!

Thanyou for your reply.It is related to the heating problem and other areas that the EH highlighted.I had also not protected their Deposit.Through our Solicitors it was decided that I pay them an amount which was supposed to include the Deposit.In return they would not take any further action over the so called breaches or non complinace with the TDS.I was told that they just wanted to leave.I still feel that they orchestrated the whole event to gain compensation and secure Council housing.I do understand that they turned down Council accomodation and have let another Property.They insist that the Deposit was part of the settlement amount and I should retrun it to them on them completing any work that was shown in the inventory. They insist that over the past year they have made numourous attempts to put this right.Before they left they obtained a quote form a Paintor and Decorator to repaint the walls but I am under no obligation to allow anyone into my property.They state that I have stopped them being able to complete the work.They asked that myself or my Rep be present at the Inventory so that they could have arranged for their Decorator to repaint.I refused this because I was under no obligation to attend.The atmosphere would have been frosty to say the least.They claim they did not repaint before the checkout as extensive work was needed on the Property.They felt it would be better to repaint once the work was completed.I think this shows they were trying to hold me over a barrel.NOW they are trying to claim the remaining amount from myself by going to Court without them completing the work!!.So Money for nothing.They claim the Money is already theirs and I have stopped them doing the work!! They are very clever.I note that they have not claimed damages from me.They merely ask for the remaining amount.No doubt they will claim damages in another case.

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 08:29 AM
The amount you have already paid, did it include the deposit or not, was it itemised?

It sounds like you denied the tenant the ability to get competitive quotes, and disregarded any quote you did see simply on the grounds that you have the option to, not because of cost/quality etc.

Was anyone representing you at the inventory check out?

Are they correct in suggesting that re-painting would be wasted because other work is needed? They may well have photographic evidence, do you have any before/after photographs?

I still think your logic is blinkered, I’m not saying that to have a go at you, but I think the situation as you describe it is far from in your favour.

granadaok
17-02-2009, 08:54 AM
The amount you have already paid, did it include the deposit or not, was it itemised?

It sounds like you denied the tenant the ability to get competitive quotes, and disregarded any quote you did see simply on the grounds that you have the option to, not because of cost/quality etc.

Was anyone representing you at the inventory check out?

Are they correct in suggesting that re-painting would be wasted because other work is needed? They may well have photographic evidence, do you have any before/after photographs?

I still think your logic is blinkered, I’m not saying that to have a go at you, but I think the situation as you describe it is far from in your favour.

It was an amount that was inclusive of the Deposit.They asked that my Solicitor held on to the amount on behalf of us both untill we were all happy with the final conditions. Nobody represented me because as I have said this was not needed nor was normal.The tenants have copies of quotes that showed the damaged areas and also Videos which show the problems.They say that the Check in invertory shows that there had been problem before in the Property and had used that to show the extent that it worsened over the time they were there.Therefore in their eyes they are proving I did nothing dispite them phoning and writing to me on several occasions.But as I have already stated it didnt look THAT bad when I first assessed it.18 months later of course it was worse but I feel they purposely did this. This is all wrapped up in the agreement.They are not allowed to use any of this in evidance for this case.They have not done this.They have used my own quotes for repainting which do show the amount of work needed in the other areas of the Property and they did repeatedly request that I allow access for repainting.They also asked for another inventory for which they would pay for, to show they had completed the work so I would then release the amount held with the Solicitor.They did all this to hold up my being able to relet the property.I am of certain of this!

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 09:15 AM
1. But as I have already stated it didnt look THAT bad when I first assessed it.18 months later of course it was worse but I feel they purposely did this.

2. Nobody represented me because as I have said this was not needed nor was normal.

3. so I would then release the amount held with the Solicitor

4. They did all this to hold up my being able to relet the property.I am of certain of this!

1. How do you think they ‘purposely’ made it worse? If you make statements like that without any backup/evidence I think it would work against you.

2. So there was no inventory check out?

3. So the original aggreement is not settled, the solicitor still holds the deposit?

4. Why does any of this prevent you from re-letting? If you have photographic evidence of the state of the property on their departure then what is to stop you from making it good and re-letting? It hasn’t been empty for a year has it, do you have a tenant in there now?

jeffrey
17-02-2009, 10:30 AM
Fancy online Scrabble instead, jta?


A good idea, but I fancy Jeffrey would beat the pants off both of us.
I prefer Boggle.

granadaok
17-02-2009, 14:07 PM
1. How do you think they ‘purposely’ made it worse? If you make statements like that without any backup/evidence I think it would work against you.

2. So there was no inventory check out?

3. So the original aggreement is not settled, the solicitor still holds the deposit?

4. Why does any of this prevent you from re-letting? If you have photographic evidence of the state of the property on their departure then what is to stop you from making it good and re-letting? It hasn’t been empty for a year has it, do you have a tenant in there now?

Yes an inventory was completed and it noted that all aspects were good.The tenants had kept to their word and had repainted back to original one room which they had changed the colour scheme.They had replaced broken items.The inventory noted stickers on a door.Blue tac marks and the holes that had had been refilled and painted.It stated this was chargeable to T.This is why I am seeking the amount from them.No, the Solcitor does not hold the amount.On reciept of the final rent payment I put the Deposit into a TDS scheme.That is where it remains.We were going to go through the ADR servive but when the T recieved copies of the Paperwork I had sent from ADR they pulled out and are taking me to Court.The property was relet within a Month for more than the T were paying.And no.I have not completed the work only the repairs that the EH enforced.

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 14:12 PM
It stated this was chargeable to T.This is why I am seeking the amount from them.

If the tenants made good then why is it chargeable to them, who actually paid for all the painting / repairs, you or the tenant?

granadaok
17-02-2009, 14:28 PM
If the tenants made good then why is it chargeable to them, who actually paid for all the painting / repairs, you or the tenant?

Because it was visable where they had repainted.They argue that they did not paint the whole of the walls as the work that was needed for the rest of the property would mean it would be ruined.Instead they did all the could and had a painter and decorator access the walls so that if repainting was required he could do the work quickly.I understand they did this a couple of days before the Inventory.So they knew they may well be liable for the walls.They were employing the Decorator and would be paying Him.They argue that I have stopped them fulfilling that obligation as I would not be present so a date time could be arranged for the repainting to happen.As stated I was under no oligation to let anyone into my property.They argue that because I relet the property without doing the repainting or letting them do it I have not kept to the agreement so they now wish to take all the remaining money without doing the work.Why should I give them the Money a year later?They withdrew from the ADR and they finished the Mediation call early.It appears it is their way or nothing!

mummyto5
17-02-2009, 14:32 PM
im sorry but u really do give ll a bad name,
ive read all the posts and i find u selfish,arrogant,mean and mostly in a world of your own,
i hope they get there money back cause for u as a ll they deserve it,
p.s can i please get the bus will u guys to watch court hearing?

jeffrey
17-02-2009, 14:34 PM
im sorry but u really do give ll a bad name,
ive read all the posts and i find u selfish,arrogant,mean and mostly in a world of your own,
i hope they get there money back cause for u as a ll they deserve it,
p.s can i please get the bus will u guys to watch court hearing?
Please re-write this post in English.

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 15:03 PM
The fuller picture is still not flattering to the OP even if it appears the Ts have reneged on their original agreement with you, which i hope was signed in front of a solicitor.
And it is up to the discretion of the LL to charge for work via quotes from the deposit and if there is a willing tenant prepared to accept the property as is then the LL should accept it and keep the money in trust for the next opportunity to renovate. There is no time limit for this on statute anywhere that i know of.
However, you should have made yourelf available for the decorator etc as then you could have been on top of the situation rather than playing silly petty beggars with the T.
Good to see the deposit was put in TDS as i have recently found the Memorandum & Direction on the TDS section of HA04 and sec84 clearly states that if the Act has been complied with by the time of a court hearing that the 3x does not apply.
Whether a county court judge has bothered to read this is moot however.
It does appear that there is fault on both sides and the sending of wrong claim form details to the T is ridiculously stupid.
However, the fact that you have been willing to negotiate should be brought to bear, as should the fact that there has been a prior agreement, though sadly this is not necessarily legally binding.
I still think your best plan is to return the deposit in full and inform the TDS as this would mean that the 3x again should not be relevant as the TDS is insurance for the T that you are not going to misappropriate the T's monies.
Get everything in writing - ie your offer to them.
Please see past your personal problems with the T and send them on their way with the deposit but at less cost to yourself
and seriously go on an approved lettings course to learn your responsibilities as LL

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 15:09 PM
ps in reply to the original post re postponement - speak to the courts or fill in the allocation questionnaire saying what dates you are unavailable - it's not rocket science.

susanne
17-02-2009, 16:18 PM
""On reciept of the final rent payment I put the Deposit into a TDS scheme"

most decent LLs put a deposit in a Scheme within 14 days of receiving it .....

granadaok
17-02-2009, 17:07 PM
The fuller picture is still not flattering to the OP even if it appears the Ts have reneged on their original agreement with you, which i hope was signed in front of a solicitor.
And it is up to the discretion of the LL to charge for work via quotes from the deposit and if there is a willing tenant prepared to accept the property as is then the LL should accept it and keep the money in trust for the next opportunity to renovate. There is no time limit for this on statute anywhere that i know of.
However, you should have made yourelf available for the decorator etc as then you could have been on top of the situation rather than playing silly petty beggars with the T.
Good to see the deposit was put in TDS as i have recently found the Memorandum & Direction on the TDS section of HA04 and sec84 clearly states that if the Act has been complied with by the time of a court hearing that the 3x does not apply.
Whether a county court judge has bothered to read this is moot however.
It does appear that there is fault on both sides and the sending of wrong claim form details to the T is ridiculously stupid.
However, the fact that you have been willing to negotiate should be brought to bear, as should the fact that there has been a prior agreement, though sadly this is not necessarily legally binding.
I still think your best plan is to return the deposit in full and inform the TDS as this would mean that the 3x again should not be relevant as the TDS is insurance for the T that you are not going to misappropriate the T's monies.
Get everything in writing - ie your offer to them.
Please see past your personal problems with the T and send them on their way with the deposit but at less cost to yourself
and seriously go on an approved lettings course to learn your responsibilities as LL


No,there is no signed agreement just a number of letters from the Solicitors.There is also a letter of conclusion.Part of the agreement was the T would take no action with regard to the fact that I had not protected their Deposit.They payed up until the agreed check out day and it was on reciept of this Payment that I put it into the TDS.They feel that this breached the agreement as I put it into the TDS knowing they were leaving within 2 weeks and we had agreed they would take no action.They are saying I did this on purpose to complicate matters.Yet they still moved out knowing I had done this.They claim it was becuase of the safety aspect.I can not change the Court date as this is the Hearing! They have provided referances,receipts and Video's in Evidance.I have used the events that led up to the agreement as my Evidance.They state that the Court hearing is about the Deposit only and I have now breached the agreement again!!!! They state this is because it was an agreement out of Court and that it must not be used in any further proceedings.I am merely informing the Judge of everything.They have started their statement of facts from the sealing of the agreement and what has happened since.They will not be drawn into a discussion over what led to the agreement as they state it will leave THEM liable for breach.Therefore THEY are refusing to answer MY questions.That was the reason they finished the call.THEY would only discuss the amount outstanding and to insist it was part of the agreement and they had tried to keep their part BUT I WAS STOPPING THEM!!

I now have a further 3 Properties and can assure you all that I have the very best Letting Agent who deals with these!

granadaok
17-02-2009, 17:08 PM
""on reciept of the final rent payment i put the deposit into a tds scheme"

most decent lls put a deposit in a scheme within 14 days of receiving it .....

yet my tenants are taking me to court because i put it into the scheme!!!!

jta
17-02-2009, 17:28 PM
yet my tenants are taking me to court because i put it into the scheme!!!!

You put it in the scheme! At the end of the tenancy! It should have gone in at the start!

I disagree with Sheriffatman I think the judge will find your evidence incoherent, and probably order that you pay 3x the deposit as a penalty, and return the deposit in full. TBH I think you deserve it.

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 17:35 PM
You don’t think the judge will find it odd that you put it into the scheme after the final rent payment and instantly refuse its return to the tenant? If you represent yourself and explain things in the same way you have done in this thread then things are not going to go your way I’m afraid.

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 17:51 PM
jta - i am merely stating what is in the memorandum of the Act as signed off by the govt - this is a little known direction on the 3xdeposit and is there in black & white to help judges with their discretion - i am not saying that any judge has read it or is aware of its implications, merely that this 'loophole' exists to mitigate the severe penalty when there has merely been an admin error.
As you say, this is unlikely to come into play as the deposit is being witheld and yes, most judges will order 3xdeposit, especially when the situation is how it has been described.
Just giving a little hope there for others in less sticky a situation and pointing out that a 3xclaim is sometimes defeated by this.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/em/uksiem_20070797_en.pdf - sec 84
Whatever has gone on, it does seem a little snide that the T would agree to the payment of damages out of court for no further action, accept the money (i am guessing here) then pursue for the 3xclaim.
6 of one, bakers' dozen of the other here.
And yes, the evidence is incoherent and it was v foolish to sack the solicitors when the OP clearly has no clue what they have done wrong.
gd - They have not taken you to court because you put it in the scheme but because it wasn't within 14 days and the fact that you have no signed agreement with the T re prior damages is going to bugger you just as hard.
GIVE THE DEPOSIT BACK NOW!

jta
17-02-2009, 18:02 PM
jta - i am merely stating what is in the memorandum of the Act as signed off by the govt

I know, I wasn't having a dig at you. I just think you're wasting your time.

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 18:08 PM
so true jta, no offence taken :)
- am still up for witnessing this carcrash court date in person though!

jta
17-02-2009, 18:22 PM
so true jta, no offence taken


Ta!

What you posted earlier is interesting though,

84. Where a tenant becomes aware that his deposit has not been safeguarded with an authorised scheme, or where the landlord has not provided the tenant with the prescribed information, the tenant can seek a court order requiring the landlord to comply with HA 04. If a landlord has not complied with the Act by the time of a court hearing, the court must order him to pay to the tenant an amount equivalent to three times the deposit.



I hope Jeffrey will jump in here, but the way I see that ^^ is that the judge is not bound to make the order for 3x, but could, if he felt like it. And that of course would depend on the story he heard in court. :rolleyes:

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 18:41 PM
The simple fact that he put the deposit in the TDS after the last rent payment says to me that he has effectively prevented the tenant from getting the deposit back, it wasn’t to avoid the 3x penalty but to lock the deposit out of reach. I think a judge will also see it that way, using the TDS scheme in an underhand way to prevent the tenant getting the deposit back. If I were in the tenant’s position seeing the deposit locked away after I have made a final rent payment I would not be happy and would feel that a 3x claim is justified. The situation may well have been viewed differently (by me at least) if he had protected the deposit, albeit very late, but then released the deposit to the tenant.

granadaok
17-02-2009, 18:45 PM
jta - i am merely stating what is in the memorandum of the Act as signed off by the govt - this is a little known direction on the 3xdeposit and is there in black & white to help judges with their discretion - i am not saying that any judge has read it or is aware of its implications, merely that this 'loophole' exists to mitigate the severe penalty when there has merely been an admin error.
As you say, this is unlikely to come into play as the deposit is being witheld and yes, most judges will order 3xdeposit, especially when the situation is how it has been described.
Just giving a little hope there for others in less sticky a situation and pointing out that a 3xclaim is sometimes defeated by this.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/em/uksiem_20070797_en.pdf - sec 84
Whatever has gone on, it does seem a little snide that the T would agree to the payment of damages out of court for no further action, accept the money (i am guessing here) then pursue for the 3xclaim.
6 of one, bakers' dozen of the other here.
And yes, the evidence is incoherent and it was v foolish to sack the solicitors when the OP clearly has no clue what they have done wrong.
gd - They have not taken you to court because you put it in the scheme but because it wasn't within 14 days and the fact that you have no signed agreement with the T re prior damages is going to bugger you just as hard.
GIVE THE DEPOSIT BACK NOW!

I don't think I have made myself clear enough.The T are not claiming the 3x amount and have never implied they would.I have paid them a portion of their Deposit back and I wish to keep the remaining amount to pay for the Repainting of the property.I feel this is my right as I stated in my very first post.Because of numourous problems which the T felt they had with the Property and my Solicitor not fighting my Corner I had to pay them an amount which meant they would not take me to Court for various breaches of Tenancy.They would not sue me for NOT protecting the Deposit.In other words they wanted to take MY MONEY and never hear from me again!
The T as I have said are clever.All they have stated they want is the remaining Deposit.They said they stand by their part of the Agreement and wish to only have their remaining Money back and go our seperate ways.They have not claimed out of Court cost or Compensation.Just the amount outstanding from our Agreement.BUT they did not repaint.The inventory states I can claim this from them.They argue that they could not do it at the time but had employed a Decorator to go to the Property to repaint once I had the repairs completed that the EH had ordered.As I have already said.I DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO LET THIS HAPPEN!! They should have done this BEFORE they left.It is NOT my problem that they felt it would be wasted.For the sake of Clarity Im told the amount equated to their removal cost and no more.This is what they claim.I see from their witness statement that they wish to overlook my slurs on their Charactor becuase they just want the agreement upheld so they can get ME out of THEIR LIVES!!! I think it is the other way round.They brought this on themselves! I think they are hoping the Judge will look at them with Pity and award them a great deal of Money.This is what I mean by they are clever!!!!

granadaok
17-02-2009, 18:53 PM
The simple fact that he put the deposit in the TDS after the last rent payment says to me that he has effectively prevented the tenant from getting the deposit back, it wasn’t to avoid the 3x penalty but to lock the deposit out of reach. I think a judge will also see it that way, using the TDS scheme in an underhand way to prevent the tenant getting the deposit back. If I were in the tenant’s position seeing the deposit locked away after I have made a final rent payment I would not be happy and would feel that a 3x claim is justified. The situation may well have been viewed differently (by me at least) if he had protected the deposit, albeit very late, but then released the deposit to the tenant.

The T were told of this one week later by my Solicitor and still went ahead with moving out of the property.They could have stayed and pursued it but ssay in the Statement they left for the sake of the Children and I had given them no time to argue as checkout day was imminant.THEY COULD HAVE PURSUED THIS BUT DID NOT.I also made it Clear via my Solcitor that I would follow the rules on the ADR.THEY CHOSE TO TURN THIS DOWN on receipt of Copies of my Papers to the ADR!!!!

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 18:56 PM
Ta!

What you posted earlier is interesting though,

84. Where a tenant becomes aware that his deposit has not been safeguarded with an authorised scheme, or where the landlord has not provided the tenant with the prescribed information, the tenant can seek a court order requiring the landlord to comply with HA 04. If a landlord has not complied with the Act by the time of a court hearing, the court must order him to pay to the tenant an amount equivalent to three times the deposit.



I hope Jeffrey will jump in here, but the way I see that ^^ is that the judge is not bound to make the order for 3x, but could, if he felt like it. And that of course would depend on the story he heard in court. :rolleyes:

That is the point that is being missed by the majority of judges awarding the 3x because the only part of the Act relating to deposits that has been massively publicised is the 'mandatory' 3x award.
Our legal system is known for its flexibilty and the option of discretion and it should be used in cases where the T is in arrears/has wrecked the property/ lied and refused to be contacted etc etc then decides that they would not like to pay what they owe and so claim their cashback from the LL - not for when the deposit is being witheld as in this case.
The original objectives of the deposit order was 3fold-
stop LLs taking T's deposits, stop LAs taking LL's monies and to stop Ts disappearing without paying the last month's rent + damages
ie responsibility all round

mars mug - i don't see how putting the deposit in the TDS is stopping the T get their deposit back - surely this is the best place for them to get it back from in the circumstances? ADR is not obligatory - a court order will require the LL to return it.
The OP is just trying to counter the 3x claim, rightly or wrongly as the T had allegedly lulled him into thinking they wouldn't sue for the 3x so he wouldn't need to protect it.

gd - they will go for the 3x if the charities are involved and as previously stated - give the deposit back now and stop the mess. You are essentially claiming betterment if your property was a state and they can prove it.
what exactly is on their claim form?
and where and when can we witness this drama?

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 19:03 PM
The T were told of this one week later by my Solicitor and still went ahead with moving out of the property.

Staying in the property would not have made an ounce of difference to your attitude over the deposit would it? You keep saying they reneged over the agreement with your solicitor (who you are not happy with for reaching an agreement), but it sounds like the opposite, you reneged.

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 19:09 PM
mars mug - i don't see how putting the deposit in the TDS is stopping the T get their deposit back - surely this is the best place for them to get it back from in the circumstances? ADR is not obligatory - a court order will require the LL to return it.

The OP is just trying to counter the 3x claim, rightly or wrongly as the T had allegedly lulled him into thinking they wouldn't sue for the 3x so he wouldn't need to protect it.

It seems to me that the OP has pushed the tenant into the court route, he has at least made it clear he is not willing to return it, it's about all that is clear.

The OP has said they are only after the remaining deposit, not a 3x claim.

jta
17-02-2009, 19:16 PM
I don't think I have made myself clear enough.The T are not claiming the 3x amount and have never implied they would. But they are likely to get it anyway

I have paid them a portion of their Deposit back and I wish to keep the remaining amount to pay for the Repainting of the property.I feel this is my right as I stated in my very first post.Because of numourous problems which the T felt they had with the Property Such as the heating not working and other things

and my Solicitor not fighting my Corner I had to pay them an amount which meant they would not take me to Court for various breaches of Tenancy. You mean your solicitor saw you had a losing case.

They would not sue me for NOT protecting the Deposit.In other words they wanted to take MY MONEY and never hear from me again!Can't blame them for that!

The T as I have said are clever.All they have stated they want is the remaining Deposit.They said they stand by their part of the Agreement and wish to only have their remaining Money back and go our seperate ways. They sound very reasonable!They have not claimed out of Court cost or Compensation.Just the amount outstanding from our Agreement.BUT they did not repaint.The inventory states I can claim this from them.They argue that they could not do it at the time but had employed a Decorator to go to the Property to repaint once I had the repairs completed that the EH had ordered. So you wanted them to paint over the damaged walls, Why?

As I have already said.I DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO LET THIS HAPPEN!! They should have done this BEFORE they left.It is NOT my problem that they felt it would be wasted.For the sake of Clarity Im told the amount equated to their removal cost and no more.This is what they claim.I see from their witness statement that they wish to overlook my slurs on their Charactor Have you been calling them names? naughty naughty. becuase they just want the agreement upheld so they can get ME out of THEIR LIVES!!! Who could blame them? I think it is the other way round.They brought this on themselves! I think they are hoping the Judge will look at them with Pity and award them a great deal of Money.This is what I mean by they are clever!!!! I don't think it is that they are clever, but that you are just being silly. Why on earth do you not listen to the advice you have had here and pay them back?

And if that seems like impatience to you, well it is.

jeffrey
17-02-2009, 19:18 PM
If there are TOO MANY random words CAPITALISED, it's ALWAYS a bad SIGN.

Mars Mug
17-02-2009, 19:22 PM
If there are TOO MANY random words CAPITALISED, it's ALWAYS a bad SIGN.

And when I read it I mentally shout those capitalised words :)

granadaok
17-02-2009, 20:53 PM
And if that seems like impatience to you, well it is.

But why would they be granted it?.That havent asked for it?.The Money was put into a TDS .They had a chance to go through ADR.They pulled out on receipt of my Quotes and my Letters to the ADR.It was in its final stages and they pulled out.They requested Mediation.But they refused to answer any questions on what occured before the agreement.They kept on insisting that if they use any of that as part of the case they would be in Breach! They outright refused to discuss anything except the return of the Final amount of the Deposit.They refused to negotiate! I have submitted page after page of Documants leading up to the agreement.I have provide quotes.They told me my Evidance speaks Volumes and unless I would agree to release the Money they wished to proceed to Court.They would not negotiate.Throughout the entire Conversation they made it clear that they were only talking to me as a final attempt so that they could show they had done everything.But they would not negotiate.They ended the call.Surely the idea of Mediation is to agree out of Court.They came accross as stubborn and non compliant as they ended the call.This just has to go against them, surely!

bunny
17-02-2009, 21:19 PM
How much are you claiming from the deposit granadoak?

I don't know if its been mentioned before as the thread is now 10 pages long but it seems one hell of a lot of effort. I hope the potential gain is worth the effort. :rolleyes:

sherifffatman
17-02-2009, 22:17 PM
This just gets sillier and sillier.
Give us some claim amounts and time and place
The 3xdeposit is likely to be granted whether they've asked or not as this is the one bit of the HA04 that everybody knows about by now.
And seriously, spelling evidence wrong does not bode well for you in court where they use much longer words...
Save yourself. Give them the deposit back!

gdturn
17-02-2009, 22:22 PM
granadaok, apologies for assuming you were a troll.

Best of luck with your case. Please be sure to come back and let us know how you lost.

granadaok
18-02-2009, 08:11 AM
How much are you claiming from the deposit granadoak?

I don't know if its been mentioned before as the thread is now 10 pages long but it seems one hell of a lot of effort. I hope the potential gain is worth the effort. :rolleyes:

£675 although I don't see how that is relevent.

granadaok
18-02-2009, 08:14 AM
This just gets sillier and sillier.
Give us some claim amounts and time and place
The 3xdeposit is likely to be granted whether they've asked or not as this is the one bit of the HA04 that everybody knows about by now.
And seriously, spelling evidence wrong does not bode well for you in court where they use much longer words...
Save yourself. Give them the deposit back!

If I give too much information I risk being reconised and no doubt my T would then claim breach of privacy.But it still stands that I protected the Deposit.I have included in my Bundle copies of letters that show the T would not take any action over non complinace with TDS.This is the reason they are taking me to Court beicase I put it in the scheme.They claim I did it to complicate matters.

granadaok
18-02-2009, 08:15 AM
The simple fact that he put the deposit in the TDS after the last rent payment says to me that he has effectively prevented the tenant from getting the deposit back, it wasn’t to avoid the 3x penalty but to lock the deposit out of reach. I think a judge will also see it that way, using the TDS scheme in an underhand way to prevent the tenant getting the deposit back. If I were in the tenant’s position seeing the deposit locked away after I have made a final rent payment I would not be happy and would feel that a 3x claim is justified. The situation may well have been viewed differently (by me at least) if he had protected the deposit, albeit very late, but then released the deposit to the tenant.

This is exactly what my T Claim I have done!

jta
18-02-2009, 08:21 AM
£675 although I don't see how that is relevent.

It's relevant from the point of view that you are risking a hell of a lot of money on the assumption that the judge is going to agree with your point of view, possibly up to ten times that amount in costs etc.

There are times when it's better to take a small loss rather than risk everything on a hopeless quest.

But, you don't listen to advice do you? Have a nice day in court.

Mars Mug
18-02-2009, 08:58 AM
This is exactly what my T Claim I have done!

In that case doesn't it concern you that based on only your posts in this thread I have reached the same conclusion as the tenant, don't you think a judge might also come to the same conclusion?

granadaok
18-02-2009, 10:08 AM
It's relevant from the point of view that you are risking a hell of a lot of money on the assumption that the judge is going to agree with your point of view, possibly up to ten times that amount in costs etc.

There are times when it's better to take a small loss rather than risk everything on a hopeless quest.

But, you don't listen to advice do you? Have a nice day in court.

I am listening to you all but everything I have read seems to say that the Courts prefer that the ADR service is used.It also says it looks unfavourable if the parties do not have Mediation.I was willing to have Mediation.It was the T who refused to discuss the events leading up to the agreement.They ended the Call.Im very sorry ,but surely the most I would lose is the £675 and the Court cost.Why would the Court grant them more when they haven't asked for it? Surely the Court would want it over and done with quickly?

granadaok
18-02-2009, 10:12 AM
In that case doesn't it concern you that based on only your posts in this thread I have reached the same conclusion as the tenant, don't you think a judge might also come to the same conclusion?

Of Course it concerns me.But surely as I have already stated it would go in my favour that I would use the ADR service and I also agreed to Mediation.But as I have already stated they refused to discuss anything but the return of the Deposit.They then accused me of slurs but would overlook this If I paid up.When I refused they ended the Call.They attempted to Blackmail me,didn't they? The Mediator will be able to confirm this Im sure.

Mars Mug
18-02-2009, 10:34 AM
Was there any suggestion of change from either side? They want the full deposit, and you want to keep £675. Did you or your tenant at any time attempt to meet in the middle, did you suggest a reduced amount to be retained by yourself (less than the £675)? When your tenant met with your solicitor what was the agreement, didn’t it include the full return of the deposit? You might not like what your solicitor agreed with the tenant, but he was representing you at that time so aren’t you bound by that agreement?

Going to a mediation service and refusing to adjust your position is not mediating.

Don’t use words like ‘Blackmail’ in court, I really don’t think you should be representing yourself.

granadaok
18-02-2009, 16:20 PM
Was there any suggestion of change from either side? They want the full deposit, and you want to keep £675. Did you or your tenant at any time attempt to meet in the middle, did you suggest a reduced amount to be retained by yourself (less than the £675)? When your tenant met with your solicitor what was the agreement, didn’t it include the full return of the deposit? You might not like what your solicitor agreed with the tenant, but he was representing you at that time so aren’t you bound by that agreement?

Going to a mediation service and refusing to adjust your position is not mediating.

Don’t use words like ‘Blackmail’ in court, I really don’t think you should be representing yourself.

The T has brought the claim for £675 and court cost.This is the remainder of the Deposit.I argued that I should keep it for the repainting.The T argued that they were willing to pay for repainting out of their own pocket so the Deposit could released.I have already explained all this.As far as they were concerned they spent 3 Months trying to negotiate with me and as I would not budge they wish to proceed to Court as they feel I stopped them having the work done and im just doing it to be awkward.They refused to allow me the amount.Yes the agreement did include the full amount of the Deposit once repairs or anything that was highlighted on the inventory had been done .They did not repaint.Therefore they did not complete their part of the agreement.They claim I stopped them doing this by not allowing their Decorator to repaint once the EH repairs had been done.This is why they wouldnt negotiate.

Poppy35
18-02-2009, 17:42 PM
is there any room left on the bus? :D

Mars Mug
18-02-2009, 18:52 PM
......... As far as they were concerned they spent 3 Months trying to negotiate with me and as I would not budge they wish to proceed to Court .......... This is why they wouldnt negotiate.

You don’t see any contradictions in anything you have said throughout this thread do you? If I had to rate your chances of winning I would say you are Mr Snowball, and the court is Hell. Will you be letting us know how you get on, regardless of the outcome?

SALL
19-02-2009, 11:45 AM
The T has brought the claim for £675 and court cost.This is the remainder of the Deposit.I argued that I should keep it for the repainting.The T argued that they were willing to pay for repainting out of their own pocket so the Deposit could released.I have already explained all this.As far as they were concerned they spent 3 Months trying to negotiate with me and as I would not budge they wish to proceed to Court as they feel I stopped them having the work done and im just doing it to be awkward.They refused to allow me the amount.Yes the agreement did include the full amount of the Deposit once repairs or anything that was highlighted on the inventory had been done .They did not repaint.Therefore they did not complete their part of the agreement.They claim I stopped them doing this by not allowing their Decorator to repaint once the EH repairs had been done.
Well isn't that true? As you admit yourself that you didn't let their decorator in your property because you "felt" you weren't obliged to do so. Don’t you think they have done their part? You not allowing access to get the work done, means you don’t want it done.
Are you seriously going to court and tell the judge that the tenant did not fulfil their part of the agreement because you refused their decorator access to your premises?


This is why they wouldnt negotiate.

You are fighting a loosing battle.

Get a grip mate.

granadaok
19-02-2009, 14:46 PM
You don’t see any contradictions in anything you have said throughout this thread do you? If I had to rate your chances of winning I would say you are Mr Snowball, and the court is Hell. Will you be letting us know how you get on, regardless of the outcome?

I will let you all know,Yes. Can you answer why some of the posters feel that the Judge would award 3x the amount.I protected the Deposit.Would he order this to spite me?

granadaok
19-02-2009, 14:48 PM
You are fighting a loosing battle.

Get a grip mate.

But the Inventory states that the work was chargable to them! Maybe the Judge will look at the case and throw it out.It has caused a lot of confusion on here,maybe he will feel that it takes up too much of the Courts time.

SALL
19-02-2009, 14:53 PM
But the Inventory states that the work was chargable to them! Maybe the Judge will look at the case and throw it out.It has caused a lot of confusion on here,maybe he will feel that it takes up too much of the Courts time.

Ummm so the judge would suspend a case because it would take too long and waste the courts time? What do you think the court is there for?

I'm all most 99% sure this is a wind up or OP is seriously stupid.

jeffrey
19-02-2009, 15:08 PM
Maybe he will feel that it takes up too much of the Court's time.
Maybe we feel that this is taking up too much of ours?

agent46
19-02-2009, 15:18 PM
Can you answer why some of the posters feel that the Judge would award 3x the amount.I protected the Deposit.Would he order this to spite me?

If you carry on in court like you have on here, then the answer to your question is "almost certainly".

Mars Mug
19-02-2009, 18:05 PM
I protected the Deposit.Would he order this to spite me?

Yes, because you 'protected' it FROM the tenant. You protected it after the LAST rent payment, so it was IMMEDIATELY due for RETURN, but you REFUSED to release it.


But the Inventory states that the work was chargable to them! Maybe the Judge will look at the case and throw it out.

The inventory existed before the tenants moved in. But your tenants had a meeting with your solicitor where decisions were made re painting/deposit which surely override statements made in the inventory.

I think the judge will look at the case and suggest that you enter a plea of insanity.

Some advice from the sane forum members please, how can I stop myself from responding in this insane thread? :(

mind the gap
19-02-2009, 18:10 PM
I prefer Boggle.

May one ask why? (Just being nosey here). I had you down as a Scrabble man, Jeffrey, although I'm more than willing to be persuaded otherwise. But I always like to know the reason for things...:)


Maybe we feel that this is taking up too much of ours? I agree, as I pointed out in #75, pages and pages back!

granadaok
19-02-2009, 19:26 PM
Yes, because you 'protected' it FROM the tenant. You protected it after the LAST rent payment, so it was IMMEDIATELY due for RETURN, but you REFUSED to release it.



The inventory existed before the tenants moved in. But your tenants had a meeting with your solicitor where decisions were made re painting/deposit which surely override statements made in the inventory.

I think the judge will look at the case and suggest that you enter a plea of insanity.

Some advice from the sane forum members please, how can I stop myself from responding in this insane thread? :(

Im so sorry I really do not think that I have explained myself very well.There was a check in inventory.There was also a Check out inventory.The checkout inventory happened once the agreement had been agreed.No meetings happened in front of Solcitors.It all happened via Telephone,Email and Letter.all negotiated by Solicitors.The Checkout inventory took place on the day of Checkout which is what had been agreed in the agreement.Therefore the inventory showed that it was chargable to tenants!

sherifffatman
19-02-2009, 21:39 PM
Yes, because you 'protected' it FROM the tenant. You protected it after the LAST rent payment, so it was IMMEDIATELY due for RETURN, but you REFUSED to release it.

> I think you are missing the point about the protection here as the deposit must be released from the scheme within 14 days of a decision and if it is with the custodial scheme then they hold it and will return it which, judging by the OP's attitude, is the safest place for it to be. It is not protected from the T, it is protected for the T!
In addition, the deposit is not immediately due for return until the termination of the tenancy, not last rent payment, and then there is a timescale usually indicated in the AST and certainly in the TDS t&cs

The inventory existed before the tenants moved in. But your tenants had a meeting with your solicitor where decisions were made re painting/deposit which surely override statements made in the inventory.

I think the judge will look at the case and suggest that you enter a plea of insanity.

Some advice from the sane forum members please, how can I stop myself from responding in this insane thread?

I think there was an agreement on all sides that the Ts were liable for the repainting but the OP wanted the cash in his pocket and not to allow the T to do it themselves.
I think the OP should be aware that their offer to rectify the problems constitutes the same thing as agreeing to pay for it and that by not allowing the decorators in he prevented the Ts from adhering to their side of the solicitors' agreement which he hoped would indicate that they were being unreasonable.
Mars Mug - don't stop replying too soon, we still don't know where & when this is happening and i still want to go and watch it in glorious technicolour.
Tho tbh i'd refrain from necessarily describing myself as a sane poster :)

Mars Mug
19-02-2009, 22:27 PM
Sheriffataman, I don’t think I’m missing the point of how the scheme works, just commenting on how the sequence of events at the end of the tenancy might be viewed by a judge. Granadaok lodged the deposit with the TDS after the last rent payment went through and then claimed £675 of it preventing the tenant from getting anything back? It sounds like this was many many months ago and this unresolved issue is what the court case is about. I expect he lodged it with the TDS to try to avoid the possible 3x claim, but at the same time is using the scheme to prevent the tenant from getting the £675 that he wants to cover decorating costs.

I keep commenting because it’s in the nature of my work to try to resolve illogical statements, but I am sure I’m wasting my time.

I can’t see Granadaok telling us before hand about the 'when and where' details of the case and I think that's sensible, I would not give details on an open forum if I were facing a court case, whether in the right or wrong.

sherifffatman
19-02-2009, 22:53 PM
Mars Mug - i see where you're coming from now and have also realised that the OP was likely to have had a similar thought to yours re making it trickier to reclaim as the tenancy had ended rather than realising he had possibly saved himself from a 3xclaim.
This shouldn't have changed the T's ability to get it back though as it is protected and thus subject to return in the 10/14 days stipulated in the t&cs less the provable deductions which is where the dispute is.
The deductions would appear to be 'justified' by work quotes but not by previous actions/obstructions
Though i do accept that this is why the Ts felt they had to resort to court even though ADR was now relevant and available to make a challenge to the amount.
As to sensible people like yourself not saying where & when they are subject to court action, fair enough, but would you class the OP in this category..?!
Come on granadaok, where & when?
Salford Van & Minibus Hire are just a phone call away...

Rodent1
20-02-2009, 01:51 AM
Essentially the only real fact seems to be that you are trying to claim £675 for an a few badly painted speaker holes and sticker marks on doors, unless there is more documented "damage" than this ?

.. then ask yourself: if YOU personally, would be happy to pay £675 to rectify this (if you were a Tenant)?

The rest of this sorry tale will almost certainly lead you to looking a complete fool in the courtroom and likely cost you quite a bit more than the original sum.

Forget all of the emotion that clearly has come with this situation and concentrate on the above fact - because that is what the court will do.

Every Dep situation that gets to court will mean that one side or other has refused mediation, or med had failed, so dont be disillusioned into thinking this is going to make a huge difference to, what amounts to an arguement over a very simple "making good redec" with what appears to be an extortionately high price tag.

Please let us the the outcome.

The most sensible one, would be to return the dep in full, NOW.

Check this:http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/DAMAGELIMITATION

jeffrey
20-02-2009, 10:09 AM
Court case is next week. Let's see:
a. what happens; before we waste more time on debating
b. what might happen.

jta
20-02-2009, 11:54 AM
Hi all
I'm in UK on Business at the moment, I couldn't resist wasting 20 minutes on a library computer to see how this was turning out, When's the case , where, I wanna be there, :D

granadaok
20-02-2009, 21:00 PM
Essentially the only real fact seems to be that you are trying to claim £675 for an a few badly painted speaker holes and sticker marks on doors, unless there is more documented "damage" than this ?

.. then ask yourself: if YOU personally, would be happy to pay £675 to rectify this (if you were a Tenant)?

The rest of this sorry tale will almost certainly lead you to looking a complete fool in the courtroom and likely cost you quite a bit more than the original sum.

Forget all of the emotion that clearly has come with this situation and concentrate on the above fact - because that is what the court will do.

Every Dep situation that gets to court will mean that one side or other has refused mediation, or med had failed, so dont be disillusioned into thinking this is going to make a huge difference to, what amounts to an arguement over a very simple "making good redec" with what appears to be an extortionately high price tag.

Please let us the the outcome.

The most sensible one, would be to return the dep in full, NOW.

Check this:http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/DAMAGELIMITATION

I will let you know the outcome.I have another question.I have submitted in Evidence quite a few Documants that I would rather not now be included.The T made a referance to some of these during the call.I admittedly did make some allegations in these Documants and now wish to withdraw these.Can I write to the Court and ask that these are removed? The T suggested there was enough Evidence for another case.Nothing to do with the Deposit/Damage but are more to do with things I have accused them of.Should I ask that these Documants are removed or will the Judge just overlook these and just keep to the Deposit issue.I feel it is too late for me to back out of the Case now.I know the T do not wish to go ahead as they will be leaving the Area soon.For Clarity the T moved out a year ago.

granadaok
20-02-2009, 21:03 PM
Maybe we feel that this is taking up too much of ours?

and for this I apologise.I am not doing this for attention.But when a reply is addressed to me and the poster has made a mistake in their facts surely I should make sure I give the Full facts or my issue will come accross as inconsistant?

granadaok
20-02-2009, 21:08 PM
Court case is next week. Let's see:
a. what happens; before we waste more time on debating
b. what might happen.

Sir,I have not given the true date of when the case is due to be heard as I do not wish there to be a crowd.I can assure you that I will return in the Second week of April and inform the Forum of the outcome.Thankyou

mind the gap
20-02-2009, 21:20 PM
Sir,I have not given the true date of when the case is due to be heard as I do not wish there to be a crowd.I can assure you that I will return in the Second week of April and inform the Forum of the outcome.Thankyou

Although this is - or ought to be - the least of your worries, if you ever need any help with your use and abuse of capital letters, I am for you, sir. None better.

Rodent1
20-02-2009, 22:46 PM
I feel it is too late for me to back out of the Case now.I know the T do not wish to go ahead

I think you have invested a great deal of time and emotional energy into this, and this is why you think you cannot back out ?

Remember that the court will not "appreciate" this; just your very expensive decorating claim.

You can back out at any point before appearing at court by simply parting with £675.

susanne
20-02-2009, 23:23 PM
each time you post something new, we start off on a new tangent to this sorry sorry tale - now you want to withdraw statements you regret making - if these statements are slanderous, or whatever, a request to the judge for withdrawal will only draw even more attention to your amateur and unyielding approach to tenants. leave well alone.

granadaok
23-02-2009, 14:28 PM
Since posting on here I have contacted the T via Letter to offer that I keep £350 and the rest is returned to them and they have written today to refuse my offer and state that they will not discuss the case any further unless I wish to offer them the Full amount of £675!

granadaok
23-02-2009, 14:30 PM
each time you post something new, we start off on a new tangent to this sorry sorry tale - now you want to withdraw statements you regret making - if these statements are slanderous, or whatever, a request to the judge for withdrawal will only draw even more attention to your amateur and unyielding approach to tenants. leave well alone.

The T have written to myself and the Courts and have asked that the allegations are to be removed so that they can be dealt with at a later date! They are already planning their next action.

Rodent1
24-02-2009, 00:04 AM
As comms channels between you and T are still just about open, negotiate the very best deal you can with them, if that turns out to be the whole £675, then give it to them. Part of the deal needs to be "no further action on ALL issues"
This MUST be done before you go to court, because you are going to end up looking like this if you do proceed to court:


You must resolve this out of court or risk considerably bigger troubles.

Mars Mug
24-02-2009, 07:35 AM
http://www.clarku.edu/students/cuds/Head%20Up%20Your%20Ass.jpg


OK, I searched my bathroom, how and where did you hide the camera? :confused:

granadaok
05-03-2009, 19:26 PM
I have received ,via signed for mail this morning ,a Letter from my T. They are informing me that I have 7 days to withdrawn my counterclaim. They have told me that they are intending to apply to have my counterclaim "struck out". This is their words!!. Can they do this?? Their Letter tells me that there is no signed agreement that I have referred to in my Counterclaim. It tells me that I have submitted false quotes. It tells me that I have made allegations that my own evidence can disprove. It tells me that I have accused them of potential theft ,of violence and they can dispove it all. Can they really do this? Is this not proof that they are threatening me. Once a case is set it cannot be struck out,can it?

susanne
05-03-2009, 20:22 PM
If a judge thinks there is no case to answer, he can order any case in teh small claims court to be struck out before a hearing. i had one struck out against me last year, as the claimant did not produce the evidence asked of them by the court.

they are calling your bluff and trying to frighten you.

when is the court hearing date ?

Mars Mug
05-03-2009, 20:56 PM
Susanne, have you read through the other 15 pages of this thread?

jeffrey
06-03-2009, 11:12 AM
Susanne, have you read through the other 15 pages of this thread?
(esp. if you were previously suffering insomnia; it'll cure that, no mistake).

theartfullodger
06-03-2009, 11:45 AM
You'd better assume the tenants/their representatives are reading this as well - so they'll know what you've done AND YOUR ATTITUDE which may not strike everyone (eg me) as entirely fair

Cheers and good luck in court!

Gigabyte
06-03-2009, 13:20 PM
First of all, I sincerely wish your (Ex) Tenants the best of luck in their upcoming court case, and possibly the one after that when they take you on for other reasons.

Secondly, (if) this is real it has been one of the most entertaining examples of car crash, self destruction tales of woe I have ever read. It is worthy of a TV series on Living TV. You present yourself as some form of grotesque Landlord along the lines of Peter Rachman. I find it incredible that anyone can be capable of your actions and of such ignorance. Either you have no grasp of English law or you are simply intent on handing as much money away as possible is not clear. Time and time again you have ignored the advice of everyone here, and even your own legal counsel. Do you feel that you know better?

Thirdly, Once all of this is over and you are thousands of pounds down I feel you should write a book to record your experiences. I think you would be an excellent spokesperson for all that is wrong with Landlords in the UK today – maybe something along the lines of “confessions of a bad Landlord” or ‘confessions of an idiot’ whichever you feel is more appropriate. Although I know you are very much in the minority you place a stain on the whole lettings market.

I find it incredible that someone like you is able to become a LL and operate so completely unscrupulously within this day and age. I also worry for your current tenants of the property you have re-let and the 3 other houses you have let out. Clearly you have no clue how lettings work, get out now and make the market safer for all.

granadaok
06-03-2009, 13:55 PM
First of all, I sincerely wish your (Ex) Tenants the best of luck in their upcoming court case, and possibly the one after that when they take you on for other reasons.

Secondly, (if) this is real it has been one of the most entertaining examples of car crash, self destruction tales of woe I have ever read. It is worthy of a TV series on Living TV. You present yourself as some form of grotesque Landlord along the lines of Peter Rachman. I find it incredible that anyone can be capable of your actions and of such ignorance. Either you have no grasp of English law or you are simply intent on handing as much money away as possible is not clear. Time and time again you have ignored the advice of everyone here, and even your own legal counsel. Do you feel that you know better?

Thirdly, Once all of this is over and you are thousands of pounds down I feel you should write a book to record your experiences. I think you would be an excellent spokesperson for all that is wrong with Landlords in the UK today – maybe something along the lines of “confessions of a bad Landlord” or ‘confessions of an idiot’ whichever you feel is more appropriate. Although I know you are very much in the minority you place a stain on the whole lettings market.

I find it incredible that someone like you is able to become a LL and operate so completely unscrupulously within this day and age. I also worry for your current tenants of the property you have re-let and the 3 other houses you have let out. Clearly you have no clue how lettings work, get out now and make the market safer for all.

I have researched and researched some of the points raised in the replies and I am confident the Judge would not wish to complicate matters further by ordering me to pay Thousands of Pounds when the T simply want their Deposit back. I have paid the Deposit into a scheme.The Judge has NO grounds whatsoever to force me to pay the 3x amount purely to make an example. The T have only asks for cost. They actaully state in their claim that they have not included a claim for loss of earning etc. Therefore there is no reason for the Judge to order this. I have been reading other forums that are there for the T and the advice given on there seems to contradict the advice on here. It is also my understanding that as the case is due to be heard shortly it is too late for the T to ask for my Counterclaim to be struck out. It will simply delay matters. When this matter is concluded by the Court the T would not be able to bring any more actions against me as the Court would already have viewed all the Papers.

mind the gap
06-03-2009, 15:19 PM
I have researched and researched some of the points raised in the replies and I am confident the Judge would not wish to complicate matters further by ordering me to pay Thousands of Pounds when the T simply want their Deposit back. I have paid the Deposit into a scheme.The Judge has NO grounds whatsoever to force me to pay the 3x amount purely to make an example. The T have only asks for cost. They actaully state in their claim that they have not included a claim for loss of earning etc. Therefore there is no reason for the Judge to order this. I have been reading other forums that are there for the T and the advice given on there seems to contradict the advice on here. It is also my understanding that as the case is due to be heard shortly it is too late for the T to ask for my Counterclaim to be struck out. It will simply delay matters. When this matter is concluded by the Court the T would not be able to bring any more actions against me as the Court would already have viewed all the Papers.

And sadly, even after all this is over, you will be older but no wiser.

And you still won't be able to capitalise correctly, although as I have indicated before, that is probably the least of your worries.

And who knows, you may still be a troll :p

kikuyu
06-03-2009, 18:17 PM
Most interesting thread. I think this guy has taken all of you for a ride.

Can't you see, IT IS A WIND UP.

All of you quit whilst you are ahead. If no one gives him any further advice then he will pose his own questions and answer them himself.

I have had a good laugh. Three cheers to granadoak.

Have you got any other problems that the contributors on this site can help you with?

jta
06-03-2009, 19:29 PM
Most interesting thread. I think this guy has taken all of you for a ride.

Can't you see, IT IS A WIND UP.


Yeah, we know, but the guy's so bloody addictive, it's like waiting to see a self destruct mechanism blow up. :p

granadaok
06-03-2009, 20:17 PM
And sadly, even after all this is over, you will be older but no wiser.

And you still won't be able to capitalise correctly, although as I have indicated before, that is probably the least of your worries.

And who knows, you may still be a troll :p

Ok,So what would I achieve by being a Troll? A poster called MrShed has stated all of the facts which I have stated here and I am being called a Troll!

Where is the evidence that you are all correct.The Judge has had the Paperwork since January and the case has not been thrown out.

granadaok
06-03-2009, 20:21 PM
Most interesting thread. I think this guy has taken all of you for a ride.

Can't you see, IT IS A WIND UP.

All of you quit whilst you are ahead. If no one gives him any further advice then he will pose his own questions and answer them himself.

I have had a good laugh. Three cheers to granadoak.

Have you got any other problems that the contributors on this site can help you with?


There are other posters on this site. Replying on my thread with accusations simply pushes the other posters threads further down! I asked a question. That is all. A genuine question. Some of the members have stated that I could be made an example of by being fined the 3x amount and the whole case could cost me Thousands but there is no actual evidence of this.Why is it so wrong to ask for clarity?

granadaok
06-03-2009, 20:23 PM
Yeah, we know, but the guy's so bloody addictive, it's like waiting to see a self destruct mechanism blow up. :p

I swear that once the case has been heard I will somehow prove to you that all of this is genuine.

granadaok
04-04-2009, 10:24 AM
As Promised I have returned with my verdict.

The case was kept a purely a Deposit despute.The Judge was not interested in anything other that keeping it to this. The Judge used the Inventory to base his Decisions.The T had a lower quote for the repainting and the Judge has awarded this amount.Minor points on my part that I was claiming for were refused. The T pointed out that I had not completed any of the repainting or repairs since they left.The Judge was not concerned with any of this.He was there merely to resolve the desputed amount.I do have to pay T cost and Court fees.I can't point out clearly enough that the Judge did not and would not pay any attention to anything but the outstanding money. Thankyou for your time and honest replies to my postings.

mind the gap
04-04-2009, 10:37 AM
Well, you kept the multitudes amused for a while, if nothing else. :rolleyes:

How much were you out of pocket by the time you had been to court and paid out everything you were required to pay?

Preston
04-04-2009, 11:38 AM
Well, you kept the multitudes amused for a while, if nothing else. :rolleyes:

How much were you out of pocket by the time you had been to court and paid out everything you were required to pay?

I have to admire your tenacity granadaok.

In addition to MTG's questions, can you tell us how you feel about the verdict? And how does it compare with what you and the tenant were claiming - its not quite clear from what you have said so far.

Preston

Poppy
05-04-2009, 16:04 PM
In hindsight, would it have been better to have returned the whole deposit and not let it get to court?

I very much doubt the members are surprised by the outcome.

Rodent1
05-04-2009, 21:30 PM
Figures is what it comes down to ?

How much dep were you holding and what do you have left ?

Last fig - what are repairs going to cost ?