UK Landlord Forum / Life

Non protection of rent deposit

5 agreements 
1st one is time barred.
The deposit was returned.
Claimant has given me an offer of 4 months plus costs to accept.
I have made an offer of 3 months plus costs because I believe this is one tenancy he has said no.
One man landlord - no other claims before

The law is not clear on how the judge will say. Other legal advice has said - should only offer 1.5 months to others should accept 4 months.

1. Should I accept the 4 months ( + he got his deposit back) - time runs out in 2 days.

Or stick it out and be prepared to go to court. I made my offer today and was refused.

2. Has anyone an idea of what the extra cost would be from now to going to courts- i am  just waiting a hearing date.

Its like bloody poker as far as I can see.

�������Yes I know what the law says but have been told probably judge would award between 1-3 months but not definite.
How can we have law that basically depends on what the judge migh think that day.

I presume by "4 months" you mean 4 x the deposit. On the face of it, that's a very generous offer on their part. The minimum a judge can award is 1 x the deposit per tenancy. Five agreements is five tenancies. (If the claimant were to argue that failing to provide the prescribed information amounted to concealment, that first tenancy could still be in play).

Now, bear in mind that's the absolute minimum, even for a landlord who protected the deposit just a few days late or even if they protected the deposit on time but provided the prescribed information late. That's the entry level. What do you reckon "the judge might think that day" when he gets dragged off the golf course to hear about how you didn't protect the deposit at any point across two years and five tenancies? Chances are he's going to hand you your arse in a Tesco's bag. Then, when he finds out you turned down an offer of 4 x the deposit, he's going to make you pay for the bag an' all.

Do yourself a favour: take the offer, end the worry and move on.

Time to realise your current woes are totally self-inflicted through past actions.
Time to realise you're about to go down much the same path again - self-inflicted.

You are unhappy with the unknown aspect of all this, then just remove it from play.

Take control. You might not like the certain outcome you choose - but it is certain and you did get to choose it.

As before, the issue only looks like the deposit multiples. The deposit settlement is likely to be dwarfed by the legal costs. You're arguing about £400 odd with someone who possibly charges that for an hour's work.

If you go to court, the solicitor can claim a win bonus on top of their fees (assuming it's a case taken on a no win no fee basis).

Your only chance in court is the claim's procedural errors.

You've obviously elected not to get your own legal support, which was the advice last time. That's a very expensive "cost saving".

Quote from: ranger0508! on July 22, 2024, 06:19:06 PMClaimant has given me an offer of 4 months plus costs to accept.
I have made an offer of 3 months plus costs because... [things]

Seems like a perfect opportunity to "split the difference" to me.

People seem to look down on the notion of compromise these days... there's even a book called Why You Should Never Split The Difference (but it talks about the colour of shoes and you ending up - sorrowfully - wearing odd shoes just in an effort to be a people-pleaser) - this isn't that kind of situation. The ex-Tenant is going to be assuredly pleased and you are going to be assuredly displeased (sorrowful).

Shoes haven't been mentioned in either post.

Quote from: ranger0508! on July 22, 2024, 06:19:06 PMHow can we have law that basically depends on what the judge migh think that day.

If only you'd performed your basic obligations you wouldn't now be a victim. Shucks!

Yes, he does indeed seem to see himself as the hapless victim in this case. There is a sense of irritation, incredulity, that he must deal with this tiresome nonsense.  Even now,  balking at paying a solicitor £750. I personally think the penalties are too high in some cases where the landlord was a bit late just once for example.  This person simply could not be bothered, and now he needs to man up and cough up.

Indeed. I noted it was stated - "no other claims before" - as though that puts him in a good light, but I noted it wasn't stated - "no other failures to protect a Deposit before".

To be clear - I do reckon this is this Landlord's normal way of doing things - and this is simply the first time a Tenant has acted on it. I've nothing to base that on other than my vibe so, of course, I could be wrong.

This is the second thread here on the same subject (and there's a new one on Landlordzone as well). They've not taken up the advice offered so far.

A Judge can decide the culpability level, that is no different to a drug dealer facing a Tariff for Drug dealing, so it is the same.

The MINIMUM a Court MUST award is 1x the deposit per tenancy.

So if there are 4 tenancies and you are being offered 1x per tenancy then you can't do any better in Court and could face costs of up to £10,000.

I suspect those saying 1.5x are thinking about a single tenancy, you appear to have beaten that if you are being offered 1x deposit for each tenancy

What you need to understand is the trap you are in, the claim firms are not in this for the Tenant, they are in it to maximise costs.

I suspect that they have spent a long time arguing with you about this, opening at 3x the deposit, sending a Part36 offer, then more argument, then maybe a Calderbank Offer and more argument, by the time you are at the end they have dropped the 3x to 1x, but the costs are huge.

So Tenants reading this should consider that losing up to 33% of the Sanctions only to have 3x negotiated down to 1x means you might have been better off making an offer of say 1.5x the deposit before you instruct Solicitors and give the Landlord a month to make that decision to settle.

There are arguments you could have make about the costs, but it is far to late now as you said you only had 2 days and that was 2 days ago.

The Court is a "pay to play" venue and you are on a meter. 

It is not on what the Judge might think, there is a plethora of case law for how much they should charge based on the circumstances, when I negotiate these claims I look at the circumstances of each case.  Obviously a Landlord who fails in basic legal requirements on safety or forcefully evicts a Tenant is going to look worse than a novice Landlord who has been ignorant of the law since 2007.

If you are already at 1x the deposit each of 4 agreements you can't do better than that in Court.

Quote from: ranger0508! on July 22, 2024, 06:19:06 PMNon protection of rent deposit

5 agreements
1st one is time barred.
The deposit was returned.
Claimant has given me an offer of 4 months plus costs to accept.
I have made an offer of 3 months plus costs because I believe this is one tenancy he has said no.
One man landlord - no other claims before

The law is not clear on how the judge will say. Other legal advice has said - should only offer 1.5 months to others should accept 4 months.

1. Should I accept the 4 months ( + he got his deposit back) - time runs out in 2 days.

Or stick it out and be prepared to go to court. I made my offer today and was refused.

2. Has anyone an idea of what the extra cost would be from now to going to courts- i am  just waiting a hearing date.

Its like bloody poker as far as I can see.

�������Yes I know what the law says but have been told probably judge would award between 1-3 months but not definite.
How can we have law that basically depends on what the judge migh think that day.

Splitting the difference is not possible when you are already being offered the lowest sanction of 1x the deposit.

Serious negotiation should be attempted BEFORE they instruct because on any conditional fee instruction there will be a penalty clause for the Tenant if they back out.

The costs can be negotiate but the other side has nothing to lose, they will do better in Court and make maybe £7k more costs.

Quote from: Hippogriff on July 23, 2024, 09:11:08 AM

Quote from: ranger0508! on July 22, 2024, 06:19:06 PMClaimant has given me an offer of 4 months plus costs to accept.
I have made an offer of 3 months plus costs because... [things]

Seems like a perfect opportunity to "split the difference" to me.

People seem to look down on the notion of compromise these days... there's even a book called Why You Should Never Split The Difference (but it talks about the colour of shoes and you ending up - sorrowfully - wearing odd shoes just in an effort to be a people-pleaser) - this isn't that kind of situation. The ex-Tenant is going to be assuredly pleased and you are going to be assuredly displeased (sorrowful).

Shoes haven't been mentioned in either post.

Quote from: David on July 24, 2024, 09:04:04 AMSplitting the difference is not possible when you are already being offered the lowest sanction of 1x the deposit.

Of course it's possible if the person claiming wants to accept the offer before it's gone to Court, even less than 1x per tenancy could be settled on. There are always other considerations at-play time-coupled-with-certainty could be one. Avoiding the day at Court at all costs - is certainly the game to play here.

Of course it is understood that the current offer is apparently the lowest guaranteed - but guaranteed when? An out-of-Court settlement obviously would not come with an unknown timeframe, and unknown further tasks and costs, attached - that's the point of it becoming attractive even though the person claiming knows it's less than what they're due.

That said, I'd take the offer anyway.

It is odd to have someone quote me back my own advice on the main website but misconstrue it.

Before a Tenant instructs a claim firm it is absolutely possible for a settlement to be reached, BUT once they instruct a firm they are locked into a conditional fee agreement with an exit fee of around £1500.

So if the Tenant wants to accept an offer of £500 on a £1500 deposit they will face a £1000 loss and they may still be culpable for the 33% conditional fee as firm can argue it was their Solicitors letter that got the Landlord to stump up the payment.

It does not end there, the Tenant can get £1500 per Tenancy plus the £355 Court fee for simply filing a claim so why would they accept anything less.

Then there is the Landlord's position to consider, whilst the Claim Firms exaggerate their costs in pre-action stage they can absolutely use the Solicitors rates (available online) for casework and they can argue they need a Barrister to present the complex issues. I would estimate costs to be a minimum of £2500 plus vat if the case when to Court unless the LL settled immediately, at the same time I have had cases cost £9860. 

I have had some firms settle for costs at £650 soon after filing and as low as £350 before filing but you can't depend on these, each case will gave legit case work and not so legit casework. 

What every LL needs to know is the trap they are in, no firm will settle for less than 1x the deposit, the whole basis of settlement is to settle for the amount you might have got in Court. 

So if you forget to protect your deposit get in front of it, reach a settlement before the Tenant even realises, protect that deposit immediately and serve the PI because otherwise you deny the Tenant access to the ADR of the scheme and leave them only one place to go, COURT.

Quote from: Hippogriff on July 25, 2024, 04:58:41 AM

Quote from: David on July 24, 2024, 09:04:04 AMSplitting the difference is not possible when you are already being offered the lowest sanction of 1x the deposit.

Of course it's possible if the person claiming wants to accept the offer before it's gone to Court, even less than 1x per tenancy could be settled on. There are always other considerations at-play time-coupled-with-certainty could be one. Avoiding the day at Court at all costs - is certainly the game to play here.

Of course it is understood that the current offer is apparently the lowest guaranteed - but guaranteed when? An out-of-Court settlement obviously would not come with an unknown timeframe, and unknown further tasks and costs, attached - that's the point of it becoming attractive even though the person claiming knows it's less than what they're due.

That said, I'd take the offer anyway.