About the tenancy deposits scheme

Since April 2007 landlords have been required to protect tenants deposits (for ASTs) in one of the three government authorised tenancy deposit schemes. This has largely infuriated landlords but there are a number of good reasons for it:

• The deposit money belongs to the tenant and not to the landlord
• Many landlords (not all but a substantial minority) were failing to return all or part of the deposit without proper justification
• When this happened, the only thing tenants could do was bring a County Court claim, but many people find the courts scary and intimidating
• The unjustified retention of their deposit was causing hardship, particularly when it was needed for a new tenancy

However under the new schemes the deposit money is protected, so that even if the landlord or agent holding the money becomes insolvent, the tenant will still get it back.  The schemes also come with a free arbitration service so that disputes regarding deductions from the deposit money can be independently assessed.

The problem now with tenancy deposits

Unfortunately it seems that many landlords are still not protecting deposits, despite that fact that they are usually aware the rules exist.

This is not only unfair on their tenants, it is also unfair on all the other landlords who are protecting deposits properly.

The tenancy deposit legislation may not be perfect, but it is the law. Landlords should not be allowed to pick and choose which regulations they will comply with. Often the landlords who fail to comply with the tenancy deposit legislation are also failing to comply with other legislation, and are generally the type of landlord which gives the whole landlording profession a bad name.

More practically, a landlords failure to protect the deposit means that if they then fail to return it unjustifiably (and often they do), their tenants don’t have access to the free arbitration service, and feel helpless to prevent their money being wrongly withheld. This is the very problem which the tenancy deposit legislation was set up to prevent.

Tenancy deposit scheme penalties

There are penalties included in the tenancy deposit legislation intended to deter landlords from flouting the legislation.

One of these is a penalty payment of three times the deposit sum, which a Judge will award if a claim is made to the County Court. However most tenants have no idea how to do this, cannot afford solicitors, and are scared of bringing a court claim without legal help.

The Landlord Law scheme

In order to help tenants in this situation, I am now able to offer the Landlord Law no win no fee tenancy deposit claim scheme. This operates as follows:

It is only available to tenants who have vacated the property.
In recent cases claims have failed where the landlord has protected the deposit before the tenants have issued proceedings. However this defence is not available where tenants are no longer living in the property.

It is only available where the landlord still owns the property.
The reason for this is that if the landlord fails to pay the award, a claim can be made to enforce the award against the property (so that both the sum awarded to the tenants and the solicitors costs will eventually be paid). This means, unfortunately, that our service will not be available where the landlords property has been repossessed by the mortgage company.

The service will be provided on a no win no fee basis.
So if your case is suitable, you will not have to make any up front payments, and will only have to pay solicitors costs if you win the claim.

For more information visit >> www.tenancydepositclaim.com.

You will also find a link to an application form.

1. Fakhari v. Newman, Woolwich County Court, 7 January 2010

Here the landlords failed to protect the deposit, and there were repairing problems with the boiler, and the windows.

However it was the landlords’ behaviour  which was the main problem – they made it clear that they did not want him in the property and were continually contacting him about it.

They tried to make him sign a tenancy agreement for an extra £500pm and attended the property without an appointment.  They also reported Mr Newman to the police saying that he had threatened to blow up the building.  When they issued proceedings for possession Mr Newman counterclaimed.

The Judge awarded the tenant:

• £2,995 under the tenancy deposit regulations
• £9,250 for disrepair (25% of rent btn May 08 – Dec 09, 75% rent btn Dec 08 and Jun 09, 43% rent from June onwards)
• £2,000 for harassment
• £2,000 exemplary damages

Total £16,205, plus the Judge ordered that the landlord protect the deposit.

2. Walsh v. Shuangyan, Manchester County Court, 14 January 2010

This concerned a tenancy for a room in an HMO.  The Local Authority served notices on the landlord as she had failed to obtain a license, requiring her to do various remedial works.  As a result of the boiler and electricity being disconnected, all the tenants except Mr Walsh moved out.

Mr Walsh was then subjected to a reign of harassment and intimidation by the landlord and her father, who also assaulted him.  On one occasion he had to barricade himself into his room while they were in the house.

On 16 September he arrived home to find the locks had been changed and some of his possessions put into bin bags.  The rest were still inside the room where he could not get at them.  He complained to the Local Authority Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) who spoke to the landlord but she still refused to let him in.

She also refused to comply with an injunction obtained by Mr Walsh and was committed to prison for 28 days.  Mr Walsh had to sleep on friends sofas for 30 days, missed work, and developed a painful back.

He was awarded the following:

• £2,000 for harassment before the eviction
• £6,000 for the eviction and its consequences (based on a ‘daily rate’ of £200)
• £4,000 for aggravated damages
• £1,500 exemplary damages (representing the costs the landlord might have incurred had she sought advice and evicted Mr Walsh lawfully)
• £5,750 special damages for his lost possessions and earnings
• £204 interest
• Costs on an indemnity basis

Total £19,454 (plus the indemnity costs)

3. Anslow v. Hayes, Manchester County Court, 15 October 2009

This is another HMO tenancy of a room case.  Mr Anslow accrued some arrears and as a result was threatened with eviction by his landlord.  Then one day he arrived home to find he was not allowed to enter.  He contacted Mr Hayes to get him allowed back in, but Mr Hayes refused and instead reported him to the police.

Mr Anslow got help from a TRO and a solicitor, but he was still refused admittance.  His girlfriend had to go in to get his possessions, but some were never recovered including some of high sentimental value, which were disposed of or removed without his consent.  He spent 73 days in cramped conditions with his then girlfriend before finding somewhere else to live.

The Judge awarded:

• £7,000 general damages to compensate him for the 73 days he was  deprived of his home
• £2,000 aggravated damages, taking into account the fact that Hayes had been warned that his conduct was illegal
• £1,000 exemplary damages (representing the costs the landlord might have incurred had he sought advice and evicted Mr Anslow lawfully)
• Interest and costs

Total £10,000 plus costs

4. Schuchard v Fu, Brentford County Court, 25 February 2010

Another HMO room case, Mr Suchard was the tenant.  The landlord wanted him out so she could do renovation works.  She sent letters but no s21 notice.

On 6 July she wrote asking him to leave the next day becuase of rent arrears.  On 7 July she changed the locks to the front door and refused to give him the new keys.  The following day the local TRO asked her to readmit Mr Suchard but she refused, and said she would only let him in again if the rent arrears were paid.  She continued to refuse to allow him in when his solicitors wrote to her.

Mr Suchard was homeless for 120 days as he, his solicitor and the TRO, were unable to find him accommodation.  He was then housed for 77 days by the local authority, but after that he spent the next 35 days up to trial sleeping on a friends floor.  He was awarded:

• £24,000 general and aggravated damages at £200 per day while he was street homeless
• £2,000 for the 77 days he was given accommodation by the local authority
• £4,375 general and aggravated damages for the final period when he was living on a friends floor
• £1,750 exemplary damages, as the landlords had evicted him so he could do up the property disregarding his rights

Total £32,125.

5. Keddey v. Hughes, Sheffield County Court, 12 March 2010

Mr Keddey lived in a property with his mother from 2005, and took it over for himself from mid 2007.  The landlord believed that Mr Keddey had agreed to move out in October 2008 and arranged to let the property to new tenants.  However Mr Keddey then decided not to move out after all.

The landlord should of course have read >> this blog post here.  However instead he assaulted Mr Keddey on a number of occasions, and then physically ejected him from the property, although he was able to get back in later that day.

However later in the month Mr Keddey came home to find the landlord in his property packing up his furniture.  Some of his possessions were damaged.  Mr Keddey decided to leave and not return.  He stayed in bed and breakfast accommodation for three to four weeks before finding alternative accommodation.

The Judge awarded:

• £4,620 for unlawful eviction, being £165 per night for the 28 days in bed and breakfast
• £1,500 for harassment and trespass to person and property
• £1,000 for aggravated damages
• £2,000 exemplary damages, as the ejection from the property had been public, upsetting and humiliating, and the defendant had been warned by the local authority not to do it.  Plus the rent charged to the new tenants was more than that charged to Mr Keddey
• £750 special damages

Total £9,870.

All  five are serious cases, however none of them have reached the level of damages in the Cashmere v. Walsh case.

Have  you been involved in any similar cases?  How do these levels of damages compare?

Like

Unlike

Now it seems that landlords committing these offences are able to get their sentances reduced by making ‘voluntary payouts’ to victims.  Billings has now had his sentence cut from 2 1/2 years to 21 months after paying £20,000 to Ms Skalli.  The local EDP newspaper reports the Judge as saying

“I did not make a compensation order as, due to the complexity of the case, it would be more appropraite to seek compensation through the civil courts.

But I also heard that she was in some difficulty and may appreciate a without prejudice payment in the meantime.

Payment has been satisfactorily made and that is a tangible demonstration of remorse which I should take into account”

Ms Skalli had previously said that she would prefer to see Billings serve his full term than receive payment from him.  However, the EDP reports that ‘given the severity of her condition, she and her family felt that they could not refuse the payment‘.

A few thoughts come to mind.  Presumably Ms Skalli is going to bring a claim for personal injury against Billings.  Will this payment be credited?  (Ie is it something he would have had to pay anyway?).  The Judge described the payment as ‘without prejudice’ but it is going to be difficult to find a Judge in any PI claim who will not be aware of it.  And what does it say for justice if landlords are able to buy their way out of prison in this way?

What do you think?

This is where you are asked to wire money to a friend or relative to prove that you can pay the rent, and provide details to prove that you have done this.   The scammer then collects the money and disappears.

Michael Banks, of Scamwarners.com told the BBC

“You think it’s secure, you’re making that payment to your relative, then you send him the details of it so he can check you’re of financial standing.

Unfortunately you don’t see your money again, it’s been collected and it’s not your brother that’s collected it.”

Scammers often post false property details on quite reputable web-sites (who do their best to stop them, but you can’t catch everyone). So be wary, and very suspicious if anyone asks you to wire money to a relative as proof of payment.

I once lived in a Billings flat myself, when I first came to Norwich.  I was lucky, my flat (or large room really) was reasonably good and I had no trouble.  I heard complaints from others in the building though who were less fortunate.

Over the years Mr Billings has had many ups and downs.  In the early 1990’s he nearly went bust and was only able to continue with the assistance of an insolvency expert.  There have been numerous prosecutions and court actions.  The Norwich Evening News lists the following in their articles:

• In 1997 Norwich City Council tried (unsuccessfully) to close down some controversial bed and breakfast accommodation
• In 1994 he was fined £3,300 for wedging open fire doors in one of his hotels
• In 1997 he was fined £400 for not servicing a gas water heater
• In 1998 he was fined £6,000 for flouting gas appliance guidelines
• In 2002 one of his tenants returned home to find his possessions piled up outside with a notice saying ‘everything free’

The current prosecution is extremely serious.  It seems that Billings’ casual attitude to health and safety regulations has resulted in a fire in four terraced houses in Magdalen Road in Norwich.  A young female tenant suffered horrific 80% burns and is lucky to be alive.  In the prosecution brought by the Norfolk Fire Service and the Health and Safety Executive, Billings  admitted 14 offences of breaching safety and putting his tenants at risk.

For example he:

• Failed to take general fire precautions
• Failed to ensure that the premises were fitted with the appropriate fire fighting equipment, detectors and alarms
• Failed to comply with the requirement that flats could be evacuated quickly and safely, and
• Flouted gas appliance guidelines, putting his tenants at risk

The Eastern Daily Press /Evening News consider that he may well receive a custodial sentence, although we will not know until after 7 May as sentencing has been adjourned until then, for reports.

If Billings does go to jail, many in Norwich will think that this is no more than he deserves.