Here is a question to the blog clinic from Mikel who is a landlord
We are being sued by our ex-tenants for not serving the prescribed information (PI) in a AST (2011) that was renewed after previously switching from an AST (2008) to a Periodic Tenancy (2009). The claim came after the deposit had been settled and after they had vacated the property.
The PI was served in 2008 in the same document as the AST) but they claim not to have received it. Does the Deregulation Act resolve this problem?
I can see if it was Periodic Tenancy, then that case would be thrown out of the courts, but what about an AST. If the Deregulation covers this point, it would save a lot of yes we did, no we didn’t arguments which any judge would find hard to get to the real truth.
They are also claiming for not supplying the PI when the Tenancy changed to a Periodic one in 2012, but the Deregulation covers that quite explicitly.
Answer
Provided the original prescribed information was properly served then you should be all right. The Deregulation act has amended the deposit regulations so you now only have to serve the prescribed information once.
However your problem is that the tenants are claiming that they never received the original prescribed information.
This is really a question of evidence. What evidence do you have to prove that it was served on them? Examples are:
- A copy of the prescribed information signed and dated by them as being received (this is the best – ALWAYS get tenants to do this if you can)
- The tenant referring to the notice eg in an email, which would show that they had it
- A witness statement from someone independent who witnessed the prescribed information being served
- Your evidence saying that you served it
Number 4 alone would be the least persuasive but this does not mean that the Judge would reject it altogether, it would depend on his view of the tenant’s evidence.
Isn’t the time delay relevant here aswell? The tenants only have so long to raise their dispute if they’ve moved out already, no? (and you say that they have)
And don’t forget to increase your rents charged by about 30% to take account of the costs and risks of nonsensical legislation.
@Rent Rebel
It’s a civil claim, not a deposit dispute, so the only time limit would be the six years from the initial cause of action set by the Limitation Act surely?
Bit risky for the ex-tenants too, Section 214 claims don’t necessarily go through the small claims track, so could be pretty expensive if they lose (or for Mikel if they win…)