PDA

View Full Version : Deposit- tenant seeks refund; landlord may counter-sue



hadtenant
07-07-2005, 09:31 AM
In follow up to my previous thread, i did as advised and wrote to my landlord stating that if he didnt refund my deposit within 7 days I would be forced to make a claim in the courts. The 7 days were up yesterday, and he called me and basically said that he ahs 'been to court many times' (which is interesting!) and he has 'never lost a case yet', AND that he will counter-sue when he wins.
I need advice... I genuinely think I have a really good case, particularly with regards to the supposed 'renewal of tenancy' charges, but if it was his intention to scare me, it has kind of worked. I dont want to back down, but am particularly worried about the counter-sueing threat - if i did lose against him on some point of law that i've not heard of, can he counter sue me? :(

davidjohnbutton
07-07-2005, 14:21 PM
You are being "bluffed". If your landlord comes up with some excuse as to why he might have a counterclaim against you in court which he has never mentioned before, and cannot back up his so called claim - he will fail.

Apart from that - he is wrong - you do not win a case and then counterclaim - if I sue you for £10 and you reckon that I owe you £5, you do not hear the case over the £10 first and then issue a separate claim for the £5 - what you do is counterclaim the £5 in the same case. His claim to have been in court many times is obviously fictitious if he cannot get this little bit of basic procedure right!!!! (unless he really has been, but lost all his cases through frivolous claims/counterclaims and whatever).

Costs in the SCC are very limited - so even if you lost your claim, you would have very little or nothing to pay in costs.

hadtenant
07-07-2005, 14:43 PM
Thanks for your reply David, i thought he was probably bluffing and trying to scare me, but being new to all of this i wasnt sure. I was also wanting to ask - in my previous thread Paul F was very helpful, and said that the term in my contract that stated it would automatically renew would be deemed and "unfair term" under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 - can someone (Paul F are you there?) tell me how exactly that is the case (I looked over the consumer contract regulations online and am uncertain which part of the regulations covers this term), as I want to be absolutely certain it definitely would be considered "unfair" if I am going to take him to court?

zoe
08-07-2005, 08:34 AM
any term in your AST would be deemed unfair if it took away your statutory rights. This term is one such term. The only way it could be valid (i think) is if you signed the term seperatly.

Once the fixed term has expired, either a new fixed term is signed for or the tenancy goes periodic.

Paul F is correct, even if I have not explained very well. Go to the CAB if you want further confirmation.

Zoe