My land lord is with holding half my deposit for what he says is a soiled mattress (the apartment was furnished). I believe this should fall under the category of general wear and tear (a new mattress cant stay new forever). Anyway, he has never put my deposit into a holding scheme during our 6 month’s tenancy. I only want back my deposit has he broken the law, can we sue for our deposit back, or 3x’s? or can we do nothing? nay help really appreciated.

He as been in the property for over two years and is currently living as statutory periodic tenancy.

He is late with one months payment at the minute…i know he is at the property but hes ignoring all my efforts to contact him!

I would love some advice…firstly with the tenant deposit…could i still put it into a protection scheme? secondly what procedure should i take with regards to him not paying rent and ignoring me. I live far away from him which makes matters more difficult.

What notice do i have to give him to vacate the property…as i may have to move back into it in two months time.

would be extremly greatful of any advice given

thankyou

Deposit cases refuse to die!

It was generally thought, following the Universal Estates case and the Gladehurst case that most deposit issues had been resolved. Protection had to be completed by the court hearing date and tenants could not claim the three times the deposit penalty after the tenancy had ended.

Now in a new appeal case heard in the High Court, and therefore binding on county courts, new interpretation has emerged and a landlord has fallen foul of the deposit penalty legislation.

The landlords, Mr and Mrs Nice, let a property in Guildford to the tenant, Karin Suurpere for a fixed term of 6 months from 6 January 2009.

The tenancy being an assured shorthold tenancy, there was no question that the deposit should have been protected.

The tenancy ran poorly and there were complaints from other residents in the block. The tenant also complained the landlords were harassing her.

The landlords served two “notice to quit” but both were invalid for not being correctly completed.

The landlords did not protect the deposit till a letter was received from the local CAB. The landlords put the money in the custodial scheme on the 20 July and on the 21 July the scheme wrote to the tenant confirming receipt of the money and providing information about the scheme.

The tenant commenced legal proceedings on the 10 August 2009. The original judge, following the Draycott v Hannells judgement held that as the deposit was protected there was no penalty to pay.

Following the allegations of harassment the tenant vacated the property on the 14 August. At the trial hearing she was awarded £1,000 damages for harassment. She failed in a claim for unlawful eviction.

As the deposit was protected, this claim hinged on the failure to give the prescribed information, as stated in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007. Much information was provided in the tenancy and by the scheme but at no point was clear, specific prescribed information given.

This was therefore not a claim about the meeting of a 14 day deadline but about it not being done at all, or in the right manner. Also the deposit was returned in full on the 1 September 2009

The tenants knew which scheme the deposit was in and had been provided with the deposit reference number and the address of the scheme where more information was available.

There were a number of important issues raised. Firstly, the penalty for not providing the prescribed information continued, even though the deposit was returned in full.

Secondly, the court held that the information provided to the tenant by the scheme was not satisfactory to comply with the prescribed information requirements. The legislation was specific that the obligation to provide this information was personal to the landlord, therefore excluding the scheme doing it. It should be understood that the definition of the landlord contained in the legislation includes a letting agent acting on the landlord’s behalf. Therefore, prescribed information could be given by the agent.

Thirdly, not all of the information listed in the prescribed information legislation had been provided. Partial provision was not sufficient to comply with the legal requirements.

Fourthly, providing a link to the website of the scheme was not sufficient to comply with the information requirements. The landlord has no control over the content and the legislation very clearly requires the landlord to certify that the information provided is true to the best of the landlord’s knowledge and belief. With a web site that could change, outside the control of the landlord, it was impossible for the landlord to confirm the veracity of the information on the web site.

The judge also said this solution was not acceptable as some tenants would not have internet access.

Being a High Court case, county courts are bound by it and it has made compliance with the prescribed information much more difficult and more important too. Failure caused this landlord to have to pay the penalty of three times the deposit.

Also are there anspecific background checks that you need to do for European – Polish – lodgers?

Thanksy

I’ve also been a LL and there are some awful tenants and I’ve been a tenant that pays early decorates and puts new carpets down but my LL is disrespectful so I have been on both sides
As in life there’s good n bad

I am currently being shafted by my LL it’s not all tenants that are the SCUM as you so nicely put it.

The majority of the LL out there are money grabbing arseholes (excuse my French), that couldn’t give a toss how their tenants are treated.

I am currently in the process of taking in LL to court for how I have been treated!

I would suggest vetting your tenants more thoroughly next time!