I have lodged the N208 Claim Form (CPR Part 8) with the County Court this afternoon with all the proofs etc. The cost was £150. Yes, it can be quite daunting filling out so much paperwork which has to be precise, but with the help and guidance of the forum members you will not go wrong. I received the help of Kentish Lass and DWP and am grateful to them both. I will PM you the previous cases as sent to me, together with a few extra I found.

Cant find exactly how much the County Court fees are for submission of the N208 for tomorrow! The actual deposit was £1,300, so 3 x deposit plus original is £5,200 plus the statutory interest of £168. The tenant will be able to reclaim 100% back I reckon on Form EX160, but only when she has got her latest proof of benefits letter which should be any day now. Meanwhile, I will have to help out and write out a cheque, but not sure how much the HMCS need for this claim?

Thank you again for sound advice. I understand what you mean by belt and braces approach then. But on the same token, is the S8 notice invalid as the possession address is wrong. Correct house number, street, town but incorrect postcode. They have actually written down the postcode of the landlord, so surely on a legal technicality the court would not allow the current S8 notice? I thought the form had to contain no ambiguity and be crystal clear?

Apologies. I have checked and am I right in saying that the Section 8 is only applicable DURING THE FIRST 6 months of the AST? In other words during the period of the FIXED term, after which it has become a statutory periodic tenancy and therefore a Section 8 notice is not applicable?? The way I read it, is that his only recourse after the end of the FIXED term is by way of a Section 21 notice? Is this correct? Even if the Section 8 was issued within the fixed AST period, I read that the notice has to be written with no ambiguity and that the property which requires to be 'given up/possessed' should be written correctly? I have just read the Section 8 (form 3) which the L/L solicitor has completed on his behalf, and although the house number, street, town and county are correct, the postcode is INCORRECT as it is the actual postcode of the L/L own property where he resides and not the postcode of the property he is looking to evict her from. Again, a legal technicality that could be thrown out? But I believe that this Section 8 cannot be served in any case. I am keeping my fingers crossed that I am reading this correctly, as it will then revert back to the good old Section 21 notice which is invalid anyway due to non placement of her deposit in a scheme. ????

Have just returned from visiting the lady who needs the advise. After all this, she then shows me a letter from the L/L solicitor which not only has the Section 21 notice AST 'Notice Requiring Possession' attached with date of expiry of 4 November 2009 (which as we have established is technically invalid due to non placement of the tenant secured deposit); BUT also attached is a Form 3 (Housing Act 1998 Section 8) 'Notice seeking possession of a property let on an AST' due to her 2 months arrears in rent. In the latter one it states that the landlord intends to seek possession on ground(s) 8,10 and 11 (Ground 8 basically due to 2 months in arrears, Ground 10 'some rent lawfully due from the tenant' and Ground 11 ......'whether or not.......the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.' The worst part is that para (5) of the notice states that The Court proceedings will not begin until after 6 Sept 09 (TODAY!!!!!). I have spent all my time focusing on the Section 21 and it's invalidity due to non placement of her deposit in any scheme; however, I am not convinced that this applies to a Section 8 and fear that she and her 2 young children will be out in the street very, very soon. The L/L solicitor has therefore been quite canny by sending her BOTH a Section 21 and 8. I have already completed my court bundle for the N208 as L/L has not protected her deposit. Is this all just a lost case now? I desperately wanted to get the N208 into the county court for processing tomorrow. She is, quite naturally, upset. By the way, an update on the harassment (calls and visits). She spoke with the local council on Friday, and they want her to call over with a letter stating times, dates events etc so that 'their solicitor can write to the L/L'??

Thank you ever so much for your guidance and the cases which I will add to the court papers. Good advice on contacting the local council also. Will keep you updated on this site and thanks again!

Thank you very much for your swift replies as I plan to visit the tenant later on and try to update her and advise her. (I dont know how to cut and paste your quotes as you do above, so please bear with me). With regard to the 'rollover' of the AST, yes, that is precisely what occurred, so therefore is a STP which carries with it the same rights as the original AST then. Thankyou. With regard to the harassment and bullying tactics. She did in fact report direct to the local police the 'visit' for which she has got a crime reference number. I (on her behalf) sent her L/L a letter explaining that his Section 21 notice was invalid due to incorrect completion (i.e. the date of possession), and that she was in direct liaison with the Local Housing Association and Shelter who are looking to rehouse as they have a copy of her S21 from the L/L. I also mentioned that I (she) had had a visit from an unknown individual who threatened and asked for the rent arrears. Stated in the letter, coincidence or not? But clearly it was a thug sent round by the L/L. Shameful, as he knows that his tenant is a single mother with 2 young children. (Incidentally, her boyfriend who does not even reside at the address has also had phone calls from the L/L chasing up and hassling and instructing him to tell the tenant that she had better call him or they will visit (with 24 hours notice) and also go to Court (not an issue). Shelter have actually spoken with the L/L on a few occasions to update him, ask him to leave the tenant alone and asked for a breakdown of the arrears in writing. I have asked that she contact the Local Housing Authority to see if they have a Tenant Liaison Officer or similar who can contact the L/L with regard to the harassment. There is a law I believe which gives her (and her children) the basic right to live undisturbed, in peace and without feeling of threat? They are constantly living on edge, waiting for the next phone call (from withheld number) or a threat of visit. The children are unsettled by it all also as their Mum has told them NOT to open the door. On your last comment, yes, there is the L/L address on the AST (I used this to send him the letter). Lastly, I really want to print off a completed N208 for her asap before the L/L decides to place the £1300 deposit in a scheme, as I have read that some DJ have turned down applications when L/L have placed in a scheme, albeit late. I understand that it is best to send out the application and have it in the system before a deposit is belatedly placed? One thing that would be handy is if you had, or able to PM me any precedent cases that I could attach on the N208? I have tried to search for the actual findings on Stankova v Glassonbury 10/03/08 at Gloucester County Court; Woods v Harrington 19/05/09 at Haverfordwest County Court ; Delicate v Sandberg 2/06/09 at Central London County Court and Ferguson v Jones 5/11/08 at Birmingham County Court (all deal with L/L placing deposit late or invalid S21 notices). Dont suppose you have these to PM??? Or similar??? THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am in process of filling out the N208 claim form and would be very grateful if you could possibly PM me with details of previous judgements/court cases as I would like to attach them for consideration by the court? Would that be possible please? Many thanks!

Thank you very much for the swift and helpful response. I am fairly confident (as confident as one can be when dealing with the court!), that judgement will be found against the L/L as the deposit was taken on 4 February 2008 and there are letters/emails from all 3 of the schemes to indicate that no deposit has been lodged. He has also failed to respond to a letter requesting it's whereabouts which was sent to him just over 14 days ago. Just to clarify one point however, the 6 month tenancy AST began 4 Feb 2008 and was automatically renewed; I asssume that this is the 'periodic tenancy' that you are therefore referring to? Does that mean that there is no right to reclaim deposit then? As clearly the deposit was given at the start of the AST irregardless. Can I ask your considered opinion? Should just go ahead and issue the N208 asap before the L/L decides to suddenly either give the deposit back or lodge it in one of the schemes? To be honest with you, it is NOT myself who is undergoing this procedure but I am asking all this advice on behalf of a single mum with 2 young children as she is also being harassed on her mobile phone by both the L/L and his father who are continually threatening to visit. As a matter of fact, 'they' (as it cant be proven) sent a burly built chap around last week. One of the children opened the door, he asked for his Mum, and when she came to the door he placed his full weight against the door, lodged his foot in place to keep the door open and stated that he had come round to collect the arrears. She explained that it was being dealt with between 'SHELTER' and the L/L and that SHELTER had asked for a breakdown of the payments. When she tried to close the door, he pressed against it and put his finger right to her face and stated that he would be back. The children who witnessed this, were unsurprisingly shaken, as indeed was she. In fact, over the last few days, despite her reports to the Local Housing Association and Shelter who are trying to rehouse her, the telephone calls and harassment continue. She did not know about the return of deposit plus the x3 compensation etc. It is just as a member of this Forum that I have seen it and am trying to help her to my best capability. I believe that the attitude of the L/L and/or his father is almost a criminal act during this Notice of Possession procedure that he initiated. But as the number from which the calls are made are 'being withheld' there is not much she can do. She has, however, managed to save a couple of answer phone messages that the L/L left chasing her up. Really sorry for the longwindedness of this message, just think that when you read it, there may be other issues or actions that you can highlight that can help or where something is not quite right. Thankyou again.

I have a predicament in that I am currently filling out the wording on the Form N208 Claim Form to submit to the Small Claims Court. However, the original deposit was £1,300 and obviously the 3 x deposit compensation PLUS the statutory 8% interest charges take the grand total of the claim to £5,364.12. Problem is that I believe small claims track will only allow up to £5,000? How do I work around this? Can I simply ask for just a grand total of £5,000 (i.e. cap it?) or is there another way to deal with this? Any advise would be vastly appreciated as I need to sort this asap as the Landlord may well try to lodge the deposit (which should have been placed in Feb 0:cool: before I begin the claims procedure. Additionally, was recently handed a Section 21 'Notice of Possession'. I believe that this should have been 2 calendar months notice? And that it should have been with effective from the 'anniversary date', i.e. as rent is paid on the 4th of a month it should have been effective from 4th September, but was from 28th August. Does this mean that if L/L applied to the court for an Eviction notice that the Judge should notice that the Section 21 was incorrectly completed and deny and/or instruct the L/L to resubmit another with a fresh 2 months notice? Lastly, (sorry for all this), does it not also mean that if the L/L has NOT placed the deposit in a secure scheme, that he is NOT allowed to submit an actual Section 21 Notice of Possession? I am sure that I read this somewhere.... Thank you all!

Basically, for month of November and December 08 my monthly performance reviews highlighted concerns by Management on my current performance figures. I was informed in the December review that unless it improved in January, then I would be facing a disciplinary hearing. Unfortunately, no tangible assistance or structured training programme was put in place by Management to aid me or to encourage me. Hence, at my latest review (5 February) I was informed that the informal review procedure had failed, I had shown no visible signs of improvement and therefore the company wished to begin formal disciplinary procedure. (During this informal review, copious notes were taken by one of the Managers who sat in). Later in the afternoon I was handed a formal letter outlining concerns, namely that the allegation was one of 'lack of capability' and was invited to attend the first disciplinary hearing 24 hours later (i.e. 6 Feb). This was duly attended. I waived the option of taking a colleague into the meeting with me. At this first disciplinary meeting was my General Manager and my Line Manager. I was asked to offer explanations, which I did as I had spent the previous evening in preparation and read from 4 pages of my mitigation etc and then handed it to my GM. He then began to ask questions to which I responded, and vice versa. I refuted the allegation of 'lack of capability' and had argued that my performance had, in fact, improved in the actual number of sales and my attitude to the job. (I must explain that I am employed as car salesman within a prestige brand with a monthly target of 10 x vehicles delivered per month). My sales figures were 7 for December (as was on Xmas holiday from 20 December til 5 Jan), and although only 4 delivered in January I argued that I had dealt/sold 7 of which 3 had unfortunately not been delivered during the month). I offered in mitigation the current economic climate and official figures from the Motor Industry which should the decline since July 2008 in purchasing. This being a well known fact, well publicised and without dispute. This mitigation was brushed aside with indifference! Despite it being the worst time that the motor industry has experienced in 17 years - this was not a 'good enough reason'. He wanted 10 sales delivered or it was a clear case of under-performance. The meeting was adjourned (for 10 minutes) whilst he deliberated and then called me back in and informed me that it was a written warning. I asked if he would not consider a verbal, but he was adamant. I then suggested that the ACAS guidelines made a subtle difference between disciplinary hearings for say, gross misconduct, and the more delicate issue of dealing with potential 'capability' or performance matters as a great deal of the onus is upon the Company showing that it is interested in retaining the employee and putting together a structured training programme to be measured in a reasonable timeframe. Their guideline, therefore suggests to employers to issue a verbal warning in this instance. Again, he declined. I am now just waiting for it in writing. One of my questions is a relatively simple answer I suppose. During this first formal disciplinary hearing, no one took any notes. Surely this cannot be right? Is it not the norm for the second attending Manager to take notes in the event of appeal or tribunal??? Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought that it was key to a minimum requirement in this procedure? I think that perhaps the GM thinks that because copious notes were taken by another Manager the day before (i.e. during my informal performance review, which I believe is NOT a disciplinary), that he thinks that notes are therefore not required 24 hours later? I would beg to differ and think that once an employer moves from informal to FORMAL disciplinary first hearing, that notes should be taken for record purposes? I have to say that there has been virtually NO support offered to me in the period November onwards. No formal training, support, advice etc. Which again surprised me. When I politely stated at the end of the hearing, having been given a written warning, that I looked forward to receiving in writing his plans for a structured training programme in the areas in which he has concerns, together with an opportunity for this to be measured over a reasonable timeframe (which I suggested was up to 3 months), he looked visibily upset with me and responded to the effect, 'as I already stated, we will review again at the next performance review' which is basically just over 3 weeks from the hearing!!!!! I stated that I did not consider this to be a fair and reasonable period for effective review. Again, he stated that he wanted 10 sales this month. For the record, in the 'good old days' of early/mid 2008 this was the same monthly target when customers were actually buying cars and not worrying about discretionary spending and recession biting issues etc etc!! What a laugh that he chooses the worst time in the motor trade and in the middle of a recession to instigate performance reviews?!?!?! (A suspicious person may think that I am being performance-managed out ). Would appreciate comments/feedback and advice from people in the know as the Motor Trade are unfortunately one of the worst for fair disciplinaries. But as I said, I cant believe that there is no requirement to take notes - but at the same time I dont wish to bring this issue/concern up with them, as they may well just 'mickey' a set of notes to satisfy it.

Thank you all for your advise and comments. I am still awaiting any final decision on the deduction, i.e. all of part of it to be paid by myself. Big excesses are normal in the environment you work in, £10,000 is quite a common one. There are insurers who offer insurance policies for this type of excess, they work like the CDW's you get offered when you hire a car. A year ago I phoned many of the large insurance companies because I was aware that accidents can happen and was concerned about this. But I was informed that no policy existed (similar to CDW) as we change our cars every 3 months or so and also can be in a different car every week; it had to be particular to a registration - so was unable to cover myself. Yes, I am seriously considering opting out of the Company car scheme which is undoubtedly the route to go (for peace of mind). Again, thank you all for your comments and helpful advice.

Apologies if not the appropriate forum, but perhaps quite an unusual query. Basically, have worked for a prestigious car dealership for last 3 years and have enjoyed the benefits of a company car (for which I obviously pay company car tax!!) As a salesperson using a dealership company car, it is naturally insured by the dealership fully comprehensively. Due to an increase in accidents and claims during 2007-8, the insurance company have increased their excess to a whopping £10,000 (so I am informed?) The net result is that any damage caused by whatever means (i.e. vandalism (whilst sleeping!!) i.e. sides of the car 'keyed' or impact damage is to be paid for by the individual, not the company, as the dealership tells us that understandably they will not pursue any damage through insurance due to the £10,000 excess!! I have had a clean driving record for last 3 years and then, this morning, on approaching a t-junction (bus parked in front of me waiting to turn), and at speed of seriously no more than 10-15mph (due to ice on road), I applied the brakes only to find NO traction at all!!!!! It was literally like skating on ice and the car gracefully slid, albeit slowly into the back of the parked bus. (Driver told me he was driving this road since 6am and it was the WORST he had encountered). Lady driver behind me actually slid ACROSS the road into a lampost not 10 minutes later. Am awaiting the estimate for repair, but my GM has already spoken with me and told me that in all likelihood I will have to pay for the damage. Likely to be in region of £1,000 to £1,5000. Would not accept my mitigation. In fact, my colleague had to repay £1,000 last month for his company car being 'keyed' whilst he was in his house fast asleep. It worries all our staff as accidents do happen, and I am not allowed to either (a) take out any form of insurance to cover myself as I have already looked into this, and (b) although a company car is deemed to be a 'perk', it is inevitable that at some stage more accidents or damage will occur and each time it will be deducted from our salaries. We have no say in this matter and has already happened on two occasions to my colleagues last month. Does anyone have any knowledge as to the legitimacy of this procedure? Is there an insurance that will cover a salesperson who changes demonstrator cars every 3-6 months for this type of incident? Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated. By the way, please dont get me wrong, if any driver is acting recklessly etc - then this is perhaps understandable as a company stance. But at slow speed, and braking not being effective on icy road.

Hi to Castlebest and everyone. I received the exact same letter from the Office of the Chief Executive today! I have posted it in the Citi thread as suggested in case anyone wishes to read it in it's entirety.

Thanks to you all for advice. As regards the 'contractual interest' I have already sent them a spreadsheet with this on the LBA and also stated it in the court application MCOL, so I guess it is too late to simply 'drop it' or 'avoid the mentioning of contractual interest' again?? So maybe I am stuffed?? Citicards (or rather Eversheds) actually state in their defence letter that 'the Defendant will make an ex gratia refund to the Claimant of £xxx which is the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) the amount at which default fees claimed were charged to the Claimant.' The offer of an ex-gratia payment is about a third of the actual claim (although claim includes the contractual interest portion). If they send this payment, as it is ex-gratia does that enable me to keep it and pursue the rest, as it is my understanding that an ex-gratia payment is not actually full and final settlement? Also, today I have coincidentally received the following letter from the Office of the Chief Executive and CitiCards: Re: Request for repayment of charges - Account Number ............. Thank you for taking the time to write to me about the charges, which have been added to your Citicard account. On Wednesday 5th April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a statement regarding the default charges levied on customers by credit card issuers for breaches of contract such as making a late payment or going over their credit limit. Within that statement the OFT has stated that it believed that those charges are too high and recommended credit card companies reviewed their position with a view to reducing their respective charges to a miaximum of £12, unless there are exceptional reasons why a higher level should apply. Although not a party to the OFT investigation that led to its report, Citicards were aware of the report and we reconsidered our charges in light of the OFT statement. From 28 June 2006 onwards we lowered our charges to the OFT recommended rate of £12. THIS CHARGE IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. Citicards does not believe that the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement are in any way unlawful or unfair. Citicards recognises that customers sometimes exceed their Credit Limits and/or fail to make a payment and has systems and processes in place to deal with this. These include the use of computer systems, staff and other necessary costs. The charges set out in condition 12 of the Agreement are calculated by taking into account the costs incurred by Citi in maintaining these systems and processes. These charges therefore represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to Citi by customers who break the terms of their Agreement. We have successfully argued the fairness of the above polilcy and the fairness of the £12 charges in court, with the result that claims have been dismissed, and the courts have implicity held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract. I understand that this was not the outcome you would have hoped for and if you would like an independent review of this, you may refer to the Finance and Leasing Association at the following address: The Compliance Manager 4th Floor Imperial House 15-19 Kingsway London WC2b 6UN You may also contact the Financial Ombudsman Service. This must be done within six months from the date of this letter. I have enclosed their leaflet for you. (End of letter).... Here also is the text of their defence letter............. CITIFINANCIAL EUROPE PLC DEFENCE 1. The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7DX 2. The Defendant admits that the Claimant had a credit card account (the Agreement) with the Defendant at all material times during the relevant period. 3. The Defendant avers that the Agreement with the Claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy default fees and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same as before entering into the agreement. 4. The Defendant denies that the same are: 4.1 a disproportionate penalty and unenforceable or irrecoverable as penalty charges at common law and/or 4.2 invalid under section 4 of the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 and/or 4.3 para 8 and sch 2((1)e) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999; and/or 4.4 unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Good and Services Act 1982 and/or 4.5 that the cases of Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage (1915) AC 79 and Murray v Leisureplay (2005) ECWA GV 943 are persuasive precedents, and puts the Claimant to proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon. 5. The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debited the Claimant’s account. The Defendant avers that the Particulars of Claim do not particularise the exact amount claimed nor the dates upon which the amount claimed arose and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this. 6. The Defendant avers that between xxxxx and xxxxx, the Claimant breached the Agreement on no fewer than xxx occasions, entitling the Defendant to debit £xxxx to the Claimant’s account by way of default fees, as per the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. 7. The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account over the term of the Agreement in late payment and over limit fees. This claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default charges, though not the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract. 8. The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set its default charges at £25. 9. The Defendant will make an ex gratia refund to the Claimant of £xxxx which is the difference between (I) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) the amount at which default fees claimed were charged to the Claimant. 10. The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the Claimant’s interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that it is wrong and the Defendant puts the Claimant to proof that this interest is owed. Specifically, as the Defendant is a credit institution and not a deposit taker, it cannot set off default fees against money held on account. As such, it cannot be held liable for interest on a notionally paid debt rather than an actual one. It is averred by the Defendant that it is only from the time of any such payment that interest could have accrued on such payment as if it were a debt. 11. Save as otherwise admitted, the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is specifically denied. (End of Citi defence letter..........................) I am now waiting for confirmation from my local Court (as it has been transferred out of Northampton (MCOL) even though I did not request it (not complaining!) as to when the claim will be listed. I am not sure if they will request an Allocation Questionnaire, it is down to my local Court. I am obviously concerned about the fact that I have asked for contractual interest and this could potentially put me at risk? As they will argue this in Court and no doubt the Magistrates will agree? Can anyone please give me arguments that I am able to use against them. For instance, I have still not had any 'manual intervention' sheets sent to me (despite asking for them) nor have they written to confirm that 'none exist'. So I guess that all my charges/fees were automated with no manual/human cost involved? There true costs must be minimal in this, and nowhere near the purported £12 (or slightly over as they suggest). Cheers again.