Represent Law has obtained £12,000 in an out of court settlement for a client in a pre-trial settlement.
The tenant was a joint tenant for 6 different tenancies at a property. The joint deposit was not protected properly in a deposit protection scheme with only one of the three joint tenants named on the deposit protection information. Also the tenant was never given the Prescribed Information.
The landlord's solicitors tried to argue that the tenant could only claim for 1 tenancy and not six and that any s.214(4) deposit penalty should be limited only to the claimant's "share" of the deposit.
Proceedings were issued and Represent's arguments were accepted by the landlord's solicitors who agreed to settle the claim for £9,000 and £3,000 for costs.
This is another excellent result and we are delighted to have helped the tenant obtain justice.
If you have been in a similar position, contact Represent Law today to see if you can also make a deposit protection claim.
IfRepresent Law has obtained a judgment of £10,300 against a London landlord today with £6,800 being awarded in respect of the claim and £3,500 for costs.
The landlord admitted liability for one tenancy but denied that it was possible in law for more than one s.214(4) penalties to be awarded for subsequent tenancies. The landlord further argued that her agent had taken the tenant's deposit money hence she had never received the tenant's deposit but had mode good the deposit shortfall and paid the deposit back to the tenant.
These arguments were swiftly dismissed by the judge who ordered multiple s.214(4) penalties and costs.
Again this is another solid results and once again shows that landlords are liable s.214(4) claims plus costs. If you have been in this situation and you need help, contact Represent Law today.
Represent Law has obtained another judgment against a letting agent in London due to failures to protect tenancy deposits.
The claimants were tenants for two tenancies in a property in London. Several tenants decline to join in the claim as claimants hence were added as Defendants pursuant to CPR19.(2) but no order was sought against them.
Counsel for the Agent argued that multiple s.214(4) penalties were not allowed in law and that any s.214(4) penalty should be based on the "share" of the deposit paid by each claimant and not the total tenancy deposit.
The judge dismissed these arguments referring to the judgment of HHJ Luba QC in Sturgiss v Boddy (2021) in which Represent Law also acted for the successful claimants. The judge awarded £13,956.33 in respect of the two s.214(4) deposit claims plus £3,550 for costs.
This is another example that multiple s.214(4) penalties do apply to deposit protection claims and that penalties are not limited to "shares" of deposits.
This is another fantastic result for the tenants and Represent Law are delighted to have acted for them in this matter. If you need help with your deposit, contact Represent Law today.
Represent Law have obtained a pre-trial settlement of s.214(4) deposit protection claims pre-trial.
The landlord in question had failed to protect the tenant's deposit for two qualifying tenancies. Proceedings were issued in the country court and the landlord agreed a settlement of £4,000 in repect of the s.214(4) claims and £2,320 for costs.
Again this is another great result and Represent Law are delighted to have helped another tenant obtain justice.
If you would like help with a renting issue, contact Represent Law today.
A landlord in East London has been ordered to pay 5 former tenants £20,674 as a rent repayment order ("RRO") for running an unlicensed House In Multiple Occupancy ("HMO").
The Landlord tried to argue that he wasn't really the tenants' landlord and hence not liable for the penalty. However, the landlord's argument was rejected by the Property Tribunal.
The Tribunal ordered that the landlord pay his former tenants who had applied for the Rent Repayment Order 100% of the rent that they claimed for the period that they lived at the property.
Represent Law is delighted to represent the tenants and notes that the tribunal made the maximum award possible of 100% of the tenants' rent.
Represent Law are delighted to have obtained a court order for £8,800 for a client in Birmingham.
The landlord and his agent had argued that the tenant did not pay a deposit and that the money held by the agent was an advance rent and not subject to the deposit protection legislation. Represent Law argued against this noting that the letting agent's own description of the "advance rent" exactly matched the definition of a deposit in the Housing Act 2004 and as such the deposit required protection.
The judge agreed with this analysis and ordered that the landlord pay the tenant 3x the deposit for each of 5 tenancies in addition to ordering that the landlord return the deposit plus costs.
This is a great result and once again shows that landlords and agents who try to evade their deposit protection responsibilities are liable for significant financial penalties.
REPRESENT LAW OBTAINS £12,461.58 IN OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT FOR 2 TENANTS IN DEPOSIT PROTECTION CLAIM
Represent Law is delighted to have obtained £12,461.58 in an out of court settlement for two tenants in deposit protection claims against their former landlords. The £12,461.58 also included the return of the remaining part of their deposit which had been withheld from them for more than a year since they vacated the property.
This is a great result and we are delighted to have helped our clients obtain justice in this case.
Represent Law gets £27,300 for 3 tenants for deposit protection claims in an out of court settlement
Represent Law has obtained an out of court settlement for three tenants for deposit protection claims totalling £27,300. The claimants were tenants for many years at a property and had 6 tenancies over the claim period.
This is a fantastic result and we are delighted to have acted for the tenants in this claim.
Represent Law has settled a s.214(4) deposit protection claim under the Housing Act 2004 pre-trail for £6,000.
The client was a joint tenant at a property in London and paid a join tenancy deposit which was not protected properly in a government scheme for three tenancies. The joint tenant did not agree to be a claimant hence was added to a party as a defendant pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 19.3(2).
Following issuing proceedings in the county court, the landlord and agent settled the claim pre-trial for £6,000 plus costs.
This is a solid result and Represent Law has been privileged to help our client achieve an equitable settlement in this claim.
£7,196.34 and £4,000 for costs