'Deposit' not protected - taking legal action

[99sc1610]

I will try and keep this as concise as possible.

 

• March 2008: Tenants sign lease for property - deposit of £1900 which is protected as required.
  
• August 2008: Agent cannot move tenants in on time - one tenant unhappy with service and leaves
  
• Late August 2008:Two tenants asked to get parents to give 'rent in lieu' instead of acting as guarantor. This money is held over to the end of the tenancy. No receipt was issued but bank records prove the money was paid. Does this come within the Housing Act definition of 'deposit'?
  
• February 2009 - after months of telling the remaining tenants that the individual who was originally moving in had been paying his share of rent, agent informs tenants this is not the case and now seek back arrears of over £1,000. I have inspected the lease and they have only provided a s.48(1) service address which is located outside of England/Wales. Does s.48(2) Landlord and Tenant Act apply to mean that no rent is due from tenants?
  
• March 2009 -wish to commence legal action. Do i file form N208 and how do i go about serving documents outside the jurisdiction (scotland)?
  

there are also various other problems i am getting investigated - lack of HMO licence, constantly turning up and letting themselves into property without notice. Can i get a court order to restrain them from doing this?

 

Thank You

[Steve__M]

What exactly was given as "rent in lieu"? And is there a written agreement (even if no receipt)?

 

If you don't have a UK address for service then I think you are right that you do not have to pay rent until it is supplied. But when the address is supplied you would have to pay the back-rent - ie. you can't live rent free. Wasn't sure from your question whether you knew this.

[99sc1610]

Thanks. Yes I was aware of that. However, what if they never provide the service address before end of tenancy?

 

Two of the tenants parents were not happy with the terms agent wanted to impose on a guarantor. therefore the agent at the last minute asked them to provide two months rent in lieu by way of surety. This would then be returned at end of tenancy. No receipt saying it was a deposit, they list it under the heading 'rent in lieu' when infact it serves to ensure the tenant maintains his obligations under the lease.

[99sc1610]

any ideas?

[cds]

I think in court a judge would uphold the "rent in lieu" as being a deposit and subject to being put in a TDS scheme and all the relevent regs

 

cds