Is it worth the Landlord suing?

[Beeber]

All,

A tenant has taken small court claims action to force a Landlord to return an unpaid deposit and the judgement has been found in the tenant's favour. At check-out, no rent was owed. During the tenancy, no inventory was in place.

Before the end of the tenancy, as it was suspected that the deposit would be retained for no justifiable reason, the tenant considered witholding his final 6 weeks of rent (equivalent to the deposit) but was threatened with legal action by the Landlord so the tenant paid up.

We are now retrospectively curious how successful any legal action would have been if instigated by the Landlord IF the tenant had withheld the equivalent of the deposit from the last period of rent.

It would have covered the rental arrears but I wonder whether any court action on the Landlord's part relating to the condition of the property would have failed because no inventory was in place to prove any change in the condition of the property.

It is already understood that witholding rent in lieu of the deposit without the Landlord's permission is an unethical practice and breach of contract.

However, given the uphill struggle to recover this deposit, the tenant is wondering whether the landlord's threat of legal action would have succeeded. Other of this Landlord's many groups of tenants are nervous about receiving theirs back because of his repeated retention of tenant deposits and practice of witholding his residential address so that court papers can't be served.

thanks for your time.

[Ericthelobster]

the tenant considered witholding his final 6 weeks of rent (equivalent to the deposit) but was threatened with legal action by the Landlord so the tenant paid up. [...] the tenant is wondering whether the landlord's threat of legal action would have succeeded.I would say it was a hollow threat, because it would be pretty pointless to take legal action at that stage, because by the time the case came to court the tenant would have left and the issues involved would have changed - ie the tenancy would be over and there would likely be additional arguing over any damage done and the amount required to cover it - which at the end of the day, is the sum the landlord would need to recoup, not the full 6 weeks' rent.


Other of this Landlord's many groups of tenants are nervous about receiving theirs back because of his repeated retention of tenant deposits and practice of witholding his residential address so that court papers can't be served.Well, witholding his address is illegal anyway, which the courts will love (not); and in addition if it's his usual practice not to undertake inventories with all his other tenants then he can't retain their deposits either!