Comments on: Harvey v Bamforth – request for further information http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/ Housing law news and comment Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:56:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: tonyrosshttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-21 tonyross Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:52:08 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-21 Evening Simon Are you the same Simon Parrott involved in a case in Bedford County Court on 28 October 2008 to do with the TDS, which you won. If it is would be most grateful for a copy of the transcript, as have been searching fruitlessly for ages. Many thanks Tony Evening Simon

Are you the same Simon Parrott involved in a case in Bedford County Court on 28 October 2008 to do with the TDS, which you won. If it is would be most grateful for a copy of the transcript, as have been searching fruitlessly for ages.

Many thanks

Tony

]]> By: Harvey v Bamforth - now with the benefit of a transcripthttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-20 Harvey v Bamforth - now with the benefit of a transcript Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:05:33 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-20 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] we first commented on this case (here) we provoked quite a response. Thanks to to Mr Jones of Bury Walkers (who acted for Ms Harvey) we [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] we first commented on this case (here) we provoked quite a response. Thanks to to Mr Jones of Bury Walkers (who acted for Ms Harvey) we [...]

]]> By: S Baranhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-19 S Baran Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:33:21 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-19 Hello, Message to NL, could you also provide me with a copy of the judgement or advise where I can obtain one. This information is uregently required as I have a similar situation to deal with. Many Thanks, Steve Hello, Message to NL, could you also provide me with a copy of the judgement or advise where I can obtain one. This information is uregently required as I have a similar situation to deal with.

Many Thanks,

Steve

]]> By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-18 NL Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:01:37 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-18 @Simon Parrott: I've sent an email. @Simon Parrott: I’ve sent an email.

]]> By: Simon Parrotthttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-17 Simon Parrott Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:18:27 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-17 I have a case where the tenant's deposit was overlooked by the client. Client (a landowner with a significant portfolio) was with TDS and subsequently found that he could not protect it that way - apparently TDS will only accept deposits within 14 days of the tenancy. The client paid it into the Statutory scheme DPS immediately this failure was brought to his attention. We confirmed this to the tenant prior to the tenant issuing proceedings, even printing out a copy of the DPS certificate and sending it to Tenant. Tenant has now sued and I am applying to strike out the claim. I can't access the SJ article from your link. Could you please let me have a reference so that I can look it up elsewhere. Also I would be very grateful for a copy of the judgment if it's available Many thanks Simon Parrott I have a case where the tenant’s deposit was overlooked by the client. Client (a landowner with a significant portfolio) was with TDS and subsequently found that he could not protect it that way – apparently TDS will only accept deposits within 14 days of the tenancy. The client paid it into the Statutory scheme DPS immediately this failure was brought to his attention. We confirmed this to the tenant prior to the tenant issuing proceedings, even printing out a copy of the DPS certificate and sending it to Tenant. Tenant has now sued and I am applying to strike out the claim.

I can’t access the SJ article from your link. Could you please let me have a reference so that I can look it up elsewhere. Also I would be very grateful for a copy of the judgment if it’s available
Many thanks
Simon Parrott

]]> By: Nearly Legalhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-16 Nearly Legal Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:04:58 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-16 As I recall, there was no compliance in Stankova pre-hearing. The validity of the s.21 was not tested because the tenant had left after receiving it. As I recall, there was no compliance in Stankova pre-hearing. The validity of the s.21 was not tested because the tenant had left after receiving it.

]]> By: michael pagethttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-15 michael paget Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:52:22 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-15 This case is mentioned by Mark Loveday in his Bricks and Mortar column in The Times today. The only other report I've found is Stankova v Glassonbury Legal Action June 2008 p31. Unfortunately it is not clear whether there had been late compliance by the LL to enable service of s.21 notice. If there had been then this is the opposite view to H v B albeit at DJ level. This case is mentioned by Mark Loveday in his Bricks and Mortar column in The Times today.

The only other report I’ve found is Stankova v Glassonbury Legal Action June 2008 p31. Unfortunately it is not clear whether there had been late compliance by the LL to enable service of s.21 notice. If there had been then this is the opposite view to H v B albeit at DJ level.

]]> By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-14 NL Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:50:28 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-14 @J: Just let it go and relax! I'm sure there will be plenty to come back to. @J: Just let it go and relax! I’m sure there will be plenty to come back to.

]]> By: Jhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-13 J Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:57:45 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-13 I have been promised a transcript very shortly. Once it arrives, the NL team will be able to answer all your questions. Or, at least, all the ones relevant to this case. Greetings from a tropical island. J I have been promised a transcript very shortly. Once it arrives, the NL team will be able to answer all your questions. Or, at least, all the ones relevant to this case.

Greetings from a tropical island.

J

]]> By: Tessa Sheppersonhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/08/harvey-v-bamforth-request-for-further-information/#comment-12 Tessa Shepperson Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:43:54 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=664#comment-12 I agree with everyone that we need more information about how this legislation works. I have several customers who are using my <a href="http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk/page.ihtml?id=86&step=2&page=mem" rel="nofollow">kit 2</a> to bring a compensation claim for the 'fine' of 3 x the deposit money. It is not clear whether their landlords will be able to defeat their claim by paying the money into a scheme and notifiying the tenant after the issue of proceedings. It is all highly unsatisfactory. I would not have thought that Parliament would have intended landlords to be able to defeat claims in this way, otherwise many landlords will routinely fail to protect, and just do so if their tenants issue proceedings! I agree with everyone that we need more information about how this legislation works. I have several customers who are using my kit 2 to bring a compensation claim for the ‘fine’ of 3 x the deposit money. It is not clear whether their landlords will be able to defeat their claim by paying the money into a scheme and notifiying the tenant after the issue of proceedings.

It is all highly unsatisfactory. I would not have thought that Parliament would have intended landlords to be able to defeat claims in this way, otherwise many landlords will routinely fail to protect, and just do so if their tenants issue proceedings!

]]>