10:10 AM, 17th October 2022, About A year ago 26
Has any Judge let Tenants on a Section 8 countersue by deciding money in advance is a DEPOSIT that should have been protected?
Even after Johnson vs Old 2013 He appears satisfied the contract says money isn’t a deposit for any damages etc but possibly still wants to set a ‘president’ that any money taken above one month’s rent is legally a deposit!
This is a specific example from our County Court ‘section 8 eviction’ hearing. We are the landlord.
As part of a Shorthold Tenancy, One month’s Rent for the FIRST MONTH of living in our property was taken IN ADVANCE and One month’s Rent for the LAST MONTH was taken.
Whilst the judge acknowledged that the contract states clearly it is not a deposit and is not security against any damage, he looked at one of his books and decided ‘any’ money in advance might be a Deposit and therefore needed to be secured via the Deposit Scheme and allow a tenant’s counterclaim into the many thousands. Flying in the face of the Johnson vs Old case on the matter.
May we ask please, is he correct?
By enlargement, we suppose that if he makes this ‘Legal President’ then if a tenant pays 6 months or a year’s rent on entering tenancy, all but the first month, may become a deposit?
Previous ArticleThe Labour Party fiasco - Sorry, I meant to say manifesto?
Next ArticleU-turn Emergency Statement