TDS - interesting development

[westminster]

Apologies if this has been highlighted before...

awt19 was asking recently about the guidance which has been published by HM Courts regarding the issue of claims under s.214 of the Housing Act 2004 for the 3x deposit 'penalty'. Apparently the civil procedure rules are soon to be amended to state that all claims must be started using Part 8 procedure.

Anyway, I just came across this blog post which explains a bit more.

The most interesting part is that claims will be automatically allocated to multi track (not small claims) which means that legal costs are recoverable irrespective of the size of the claim. (Obviously, the court might then re-allocate if there were good reasons).

However, good news for LLs as it means tenants will have to be very sure of their case before claiming. As it is, there do seem to be a lot of speculative claims relating to minor technical non-compliance (such as providing details a week late) as well as 'revenge' claims.

[westminster]

Would love to get some feedback on this - does it mean what I think it means? because if so, we should perhaps be warning people about possible cost risks if they issue a claim??

[mind the gap]

That's interesting. What exactly do you think is meant by the claimant's 'evidence' when what the claimant is claiming for is something which did not happen? Do they mean the proof that T paid LL a deposit in the first place?

Then is it up to LL to demonstrate that he did protect it - and if he cannot, then doesn't that mean T has won?

I'm not naive enough to think it is quite so simple but I'm unsure what T has to provide as 'evidence'.

[westminster]

Originally Posted by mind the gap

That's interesting. What exactly do you think is meant by the claimant's 'evidence' when what the claimant is claiming for is something which did not happen? Do they mean the proof that T paid LL a deposit in the first place?

Then is it up to LL to demonstrate that he did protect it - and if he cannot, then doesn't that mean T has won?

I'm not naive enough to think it is quite so simple but I'm unsure what T has to provide as 'evidence'.

I suppose it must mean proof of payment as you say...and perhaps dates of phone calls to the three schemes to ascertain if it was protected and/or something from them confirming it wasn't?

LL then either provides details/protects it late or returns the deposit to T and hires a good lawyer.

But I really don't know if the evidence up front requirement changes anything much or not?

To me, it was the T's exposure to LL's costs, under Part 8/Multi Track, which jumped out.

If it so happened that I was caught out by something like my LA sending the scheme details to T a few days late and I had an opportunistic tenant who claimed, I'd hire a lawyer to defend it - there are so many loopholes that you'd have a very good chance of successfully defending a claim with an experienced advocate acting for you.

Equally, T could hire lawyer but I think they might be advised not to issue the claim in the first place in a borderline scenario as above.