How do I fight back after hearing went badly?

How do I fight back after hearing went badly?

7:03 AM, 20th January 2015, About 9 years ago 44

Text Size

I served section 21 to my LHA tenant and possession order was granted and hearing day was set last month.

On the hearing day, the lawyer representing the tenant argued that I should have issued deposit info again when the fixed contract ended and the tenant lapsed to periodic contract. The tenant has up to the 15th to submit the full argument and of course cost.

My question is how do I deal with the situation? How do I fight back? I need the tenant out regardless.

Thanks

Ciruhearing


Share This Article


Comments

Dr Rosalind Beck

8:39 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "24/01/2015 - 08:38":

Thanks Alan.
Do you think that is puts many potential tenants off?

Alan Loughlin

8:44 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

we find far from putting tenants off they find it attractive, most do not think as far ahead as the end of the tenancy, and have had problems of not having deposits returned so are generally happy to pay less upfront. we found previously when taking deposits that they just used it for the last rent, what can a landlord do in this case, nothing, then we are left to clean up their mess. with the fee already taken the cleaning and as an an aggregated amount the redecorating, is prepaid. no arguing about what can be deducted, no legal problems, and no risk of flouting the overly complicated rules.

Tessa Shepperson

8:46 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

The situation where landlords have to re-protect the deposit and re-serve the prescribed information when the tenancy turns into a periodic one was not intended by government and they are looking to amend the law.

However until this is done, landlords are stuck with it.

We have a free eviction guide here http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk/whichpossessionproceedings

Mark Reynolds

9:09 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Can I interject here

The superstrike case was a tenancy that was entered into before the legislation took hold and when it went periodic it fell within the regulations - That was the basis of the claim in that case - I accept the deposit was not subsequently protected under the periodic but all my deposits are protected from the start as per the regs.

So I ask this question. Has a case been won for a tenant based on superstrike ruling where the deposit has been protected and gone periodic? From the original post it seems the case is yet to go to a hearing (15th Feb?) I would argue that because the Superstrike case has its own mood, in that the deposit was never protected, is it proportionate to refuse possession based on a case that is very much different in curcumstances?

Just my thoughts - I'm not a solicitor but I would argue the case on that basis

Alan Loughlin

9:15 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

good point, but it just emphasises my original point, that is the overly complex and in my opinion broken, not fit for ourpose deposit system.

Mark Reynolds

9:24 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "24/01/2015 - 09:15":

you're right Alan it can be overly complicated - But in this case I would be fighting very hard on my argument that the superstrike case is very different circumstances and is not relevant in it;s purest form

Tessa Shepperson

9:45 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

I am pretty sure that landlords cases are being rejected now because of this issue.

If this landlord wants possession his best chance is to serve the prescribed information, and then another section 21 notice and start again.

In the current case he is at risk of having to pay the tenants lawyers costs - so he needs to try to get out of the current case without having an order for costs made against him.

I would suggest he consult a good firm that understands eviction work such as Landlord Action or Anthony Gold.

Alan Loughlin

9:51 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

an awful lot of issues aired on this forum relate to deposit issues, that is fact.

Mark Reynolds

9:57 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Does anyone have any cases where superstrike has had an adverse effect on the landlords application?

Jessie Jones

10:34 AM, 24th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Mark,
"The Superstrike case was a tenancy that was entered into before the legislation took hold"
Like you, my understanding is that there is no legislation, nor legal precedent that states that notice regarding the deposit must be served again once when the tenancy becomes periodic. Superstrike does indeed relate to different circumstances.

The difficulty the OP is having is that his tenant is using Superstrike as a delaying tactic. In my humble unqualified opinion, the tenant will not win his argument, but he has already successfully delayed the Court process to the detriment of the landlord.

I could rant at length about the disgraceful ethics of solicitors, and the Courts who allow them adjournments, but that isn't really for this forum.

My advice to the OP is to go to Court prepared for battle as this tenant obviously has either the knowledge or a team behind him that are prepared to play very dirty. As much as I dislike solicitors, it might be time to employ one who is well versed in this area.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now