Taking landlord to court after deposit returned but not protected

[kingdano1980]

Hello there

This appears to be a unique one, in the respect that there does not seem to be any legal cases similar which have gone through.

Myself and my girlfriend rented a flat on an AST from April 2011. Our deposit was not protected. We moved out in December 2012, giving 2 months notice (it was a 12 month contract which rolled into a monthly one). We were to embark on a once in a lifetime trip away as we had both lost our jobs. It took over 6 weeks to get our deposit back in full, a time in which we thought we would have our deposit back. Subsequently we had to borrow money from friends and family and were emailing daily asking for an update.

Now, we have suggested to our old landlord that we would be taking action, based on the deposit not being protected or the prescribed information given, and the subsequent suffering caused by not having our money back within 10 days. To a cynic it may appear that we are being greedy in seeking a penalty, however we are completely genuine that our trip was ruined in part, and this was due to the law not being stuck to by the landlord.

Anyway, the landlord has responded angrily to my email saying we are giving them 30 days to respond to a proposed small claim.

 

His latest email states:

 

"We have no desire to enter in to litigation with you and xxxx however I would highlight to you both that the fact we returned your deposit in full does not mean that we did not consider there to be breaches of your tenancy agreement on your side. There were a number items missing from the flat including the remote control for the gate. There was furniture missing which substituted without our consent. I had to assemble the sofa you left downstairs and get this up to the first floor which actually resulted in me injuring my back and being off work for a significant period. We did not charge anything for cleaning or redecorating which we were entitled to under the terms of your tenancy."

 

[there was nothing missing, or any inventory at the start or end of the tenancy]

 

"As I have said above we made no complaint about any of this as we believed you to be kind and decent people.

 

If however you do proceed with any claim we will be issuing a counterclaim against you for all losses we have incurred together with costs and interest. We will also be seeking an order for costs on an indemnity basis for all costs incurred in defending any claim against you relating to a deposit that you have been repaid in full. we shall be instructing a litigator at a charge out rate of £300 per hour plus vat which we shall be seeking to recover from you in full for the costs of defending a wholly unnecessary and unjustified claim again with costs and interest."

 

I replied with the fact that this would be a small claim and as such no legal costs would be expected to be met by either party, and also that since there was never an inventory carried out and that its been 3 months since we left, we could not be held responsible for any item broken or missing.

He said

 

"You are not correct regarding costs and as I have stated previously you should be very careful about relying on blanket misrepresentations of the law made by non lawyers particularly as this is a gamble that could end up costing you both more than you are trying to claim, notwithstanding having county court judgments made against you. I estimate the costs that would be incurred in defending such a claim would easily exceed £10,000. I reiterate that we shall rely on these emails and your previous correspondence on this issue.

 

 

 

You are entirely wrong that you cannot be held liable for missing items 3 months after you have moved out. The court would require evidence of the condition of the property and of missing items which we can very readily provide."

 

So....

 

 

My question is...does anyone have any knowledge or awareness of similar cases where the tenant has left and the deposit has not been protected?

And also, general opinion on his responses...is he using scare tactics? He refuses to give a postal address for correspondence..

 

 

Appreciate this is quite a lengthy post, so thank you for taking the time to read it, and hopefully to respond.

Thanks,

D

[Lea_HTH]

You have no claim, your deposit has been returned in full.

 

LL is entitled to sue you for any damages/repairs he feels you made to the property. LL also correct that even if you could have sued him for non-protection (I'll reiterate you can't), it is not a small claims issue, it is multi-track, which does expose the losers to increased costs.

 

Have you asked this question on other forums? Seems virtually identical to a post in the last few days, and, of course, the answer is the same.

[kingdano1980]

Hello

No, first post here and anywhere on the interweb from me. Does non-compliance after tenancy ended and deposit returned not have any implication whatsoever?

[marmaris30]

You would be taking a big risk if you pushed this any further. In order to have a successful claim, to need to be able to quantify your loss, and since there has been no loss, you have no claim. Write to your former LL immediately to state that no action will be taken and that no further correspondence will be necessary.

 

The rules on unprotected deposits only apply during the tenancy and up to the point where your deposit is returned. It is a shame your holiday plans were designed around this but your LL can't be held responsible unless he made specific, written promises to return the deposit by a particular time.

[Lea_HTH]

The acceptance of the deposit back in full nullifies any claim for non-compliance. I suspect the LL is well aware of this, hence its return in full. But, like most people, once under threat of litigation from you, he retaliated, and unfortunately for you, his claim has a better prospect of success. You could try backing out, but that doesn't mean the LL doesn't have a claim, or that he won't pursue it.

[raydetinu]

litigation culture again! things go wrong so somebody else has to pay!

Agree with LHTH. Also the stress and time would outweigh anything you might get.