Wednesday 16 April 2008

Tenancy Deposit Case

Interesting report of a successful claim brought against a landlord who failed to protect a tenants deposit.

Taken from

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=65430

TENANCY DEPOSIT CASE (S213 HA 2004)Stankova v. Glassonbury 10th March 2008, Gloucester County CourtThe claimant Ms Stankova is from Bulgaria and took a private tenancy with Mr Glassonbury on 1.8.07. She was a joint tenant with her daughter and another tenant (unknown to her before start of tenancy).

The tenants jointly paid a deposit of £600 in order to move in. The landlord did not notify any of the tenants that he had deposited the money in any of the statutory Schemes at any time.There were various problems with the landlord and he served notice on 2.10.07. The notice was defective.

The third tenant moved out of property shortly afterwards and the three tenants made arrangements about how the deposit would be dealt with on its return.On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment.

The landlord promptly served a further notice November 2007 under s21 which was on the face of it a valid notice.Ms Stankova moved out in Feb 2008. She made a claim under the Housing Act 2004 against the landlord for his failure to notify her within 14 days of how he would deal with the deposit and which scheme he was using.

The landlord submitted various arguments against the claim; that the tenant owed some rent arrears, that he had now placed the deposit in a scheme and that there was damage at the property for which he would wish to withhold some or all of the deposit.

At the hearing of the matter District Judge Singleton ordered the landlord to pay £1800 +£75 costs in respect of three times the deposit plus the court fee.In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies.

Comment: In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant.


The case doesn't make it clear if the tenant moved out because of the Section 21 served in November which may actually not have been valid if the landlord hadn't protected the deposit before service.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oooh. Useful - although we don't pursue these ourselves as usually under small claims limit.

I'll stick a linking post up later

House said...

Cheers for the link on Nearly.

Although just a County Court decision it's nice just to get any report about this issue especially as another advisor at our CAB has just helped a tenant put a claim in.

House said...

As I can't find the original source I'm presuming it's legit. Can't really see anyone faking such a case! But then wierder things have happened :)

Anonymous said...

I have been lucky enough to work with Mr Pedro, and their team recently organized an amazing experience for granting me a loan of 760,000.00 Euros at the low rate of 2% rate in return, they give any kind of loan financing. If you are looking for a loan that offers internationally without credit check then Mr Pedro is the right person for you to contact and his amazing team but also takes a real time to check on their website and their service. Mr Pedro Office Email Address: pedroloanss@gmail.com In Financial Services! This is for you. Thank you for caring so much.