Comments on: Harvey v Bamforth – now with the benefit of a transcript http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/ Housing law news and comment Mon, 21 May 2012 14:36:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-44 NL Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:25:14 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-44 Juan, it is not a new law. And, at the risk of lecturing you, you should make sure you know the legal duties and rights of a landlord before you become one. It constantly astonishes me that people don't do the research. On the 14 days issue, read the other posts on tenancy deposit cases on this blog and you will find the answer is, helpfully, 'perhaps'. On the s.21 - I can't tell because you don't say when you served it. But don't tell me when because we can't give advice on individual cases on the blog, as the disclaimer says. For that, you will need to see a solicitor... Juan, it is not a new law. And, at the risk of lecturing you, you should make sure you know the legal duties and rights of a landlord before you become one. It constantly astonishes me that people don’t do the research.

On the 14 days issue, read the other posts on tenancy deposit cases on this blog and you will find the answer is, helpfully, ‘perhaps’.

On the s.21 – I can’t tell because you don’t say when you served it.

But don’t tell me when because we can’t give advice on individual cases on the blog, as the disclaimer says. For that, you will need to see a solicitor…

]]> By: Juan Alihttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-43 Juan Ali Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:32:28 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-43 I am a Landlord and have had some worries about this new law which has come into place. I rented my property in September 2007. After 5 months of hell with this tenant I decided that I will not be renewing the tenancy and started making enquiries about claiming for reposession of the property. Being new to all the landlord game, I was not really aware of the procedures that are in place and I was advised to contact the landlord support officer at my local council. When speaking to him, he mentioned if I had protected the deposit with a deposit protection scheme. I was totally unaware that the deposit needed to be protected and made arrangements for it to be done straight away. I supplied the tenant with all the relevant information and then left it at that. Over a year later i am looking to apply to the courts for possesion of the property, Does anyone know if the tenant is still able to make a claim against me for not protecting the deposit within 14 days and if the section 21a notice which i served will still be valid? I am a Landlord and have had some worries about this new law which has come into place. I rented my property in September 2007. After 5 months of hell with this tenant I decided that I will not be renewing the tenancy and started making enquiries about claiming for reposession of the property. Being new to all the landlord game, I was not really aware of the procedures that are in place and I was advised to contact the landlord support officer at my local council. When speaking to him, he mentioned if I had protected the deposit with a deposit protection scheme. I was totally unaware that the deposit needed to be protected and made arrangements for it to be done straight away. I supplied the tenant with all the relevant information and then left it at that. Over a year later i am looking to apply to the courts for possesion of the property, Does anyone know if the tenant is still able to make a claim against me for not protecting the deposit within 14 days and if the section 21a notice which i served will still be valid?

]]> By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-42 NL Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:55:30 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-42 Sorry Landlord, but H v B is an arguable case, and one you find attractive but that doesn't make it 'good law'. It is a County Court decision, others have gone the other way. And the simple reply to your version of the 'policy' argument is what happens if the landlord goes bankrupt, or agent goes bust, during the time when you appear to think the deposit can remain comfortably unprotected? That is the point of protection - the deposit is not at the mercy of the landlord or the landlord's own problems. Sorry Landlord, but H v B is an arguable case, and one you find attractive but that doesn’t make it ‘good law’. It is a County Court decision, others have gone the other way.

And the simple reply to your version of the ‘policy’ argument is what happens if the landlord goes bankrupt, or agent goes bust, during the time when you appear to think the deposit can remain comfortably unprotected? That is the point of protection – the deposit is not at the mercy of the landlord or the landlord’s own problems.

]]> By: Landlordhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-41 Landlord Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:28:45 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-41 Harvey v Bamforth appeal = very good law. See HMT's webpages and Explanatory Memorandum, which provide: Housing Act applications are on "limited grounds" and the policy intent is to "safeguard deposits" and "failitate dispute resultion through ADR". NOT to bully landlords. These worhty objectives are met (H v B) where Landlord complies any time before Tenant departs/seeks return of deposit. Deposit protected, ADR faciliated. It makes no difference to Tenant whether info arrives first 14 days or later in his tenancy term - he suffers no harm from either and is in exactly the same position either way! Above sources also state average UK deposit is £500. Multiplied by 3 that is not offensive. City residences taking higher deposits would find 3x deposit grossly punitive e.g. £6000? (potentially exceeding criminal fines) - very unfair to inadvertently unaware Landlords in these early years of the regime. Harvey v Bamforth appeal = very good law.

See HMT’s webpages and Explanatory Memorandum, which provide:

Housing Act applications are on “limited grounds” and the policy intent is to “safeguard deposits” and “failitate dispute resultion through ADR”. NOT to bully landlords.

These worhty objectives are met (H v B) where Landlord complies any time before Tenant departs/seeks return of deposit. Deposit protected, ADR faciliated.

It makes no difference to Tenant whether info arrives first 14 days or later in his tenancy term – he suffers no harm from either and is in exactly the same position either way!

Above sources also state average UK deposit is £500. Multiplied by 3 that is not offensive. City residences taking higher deposits would find 3x deposit grossly punitive e.g. £6000? (potentially exceeding criminal fines) – very unfair to inadvertently unaware Landlords in these early years of the regime.

]]> By: How to ensure 3 times deposit penalty? - The Consumer Forumshttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-40 How to ensure 3 times deposit penalty? - The Consumer Forums Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:51:57 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-40 [...] into a designated scheme account and the 3 x deposit be paid to him. HHJ Redgrave distinguished Harvey v Bamforth on the basis that Ms Rollings had still not complied with s213(6)(a). The phrase ‘as it [...] [...] into a designated scheme account and the 3 x deposit be paid to him. HHJ Redgrave distinguished Harvey v Bamforth on the basis that Ms Rollings had still not complied with s213(6)(a). The phrase ‘as it [...]

]]> By: Deposit protected late- have any landlords won in Court? - Page 3 - LandlordZONE Forumshttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-39 Deposit protected late- have any landlords won in Court? - Page 3 - LandlordZONE Forums Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:41:15 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-39 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] Originally Posted by agent46 Also, see Harvey v. Bamforth (2008), Sheffield CC (unreported) Details and comments here: http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/0...-a-transcript/ [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] Originally Posted by agent46 Also, see Harvey v. Bamforth (2008), Sheffield CC (unreported) Details and comments here: http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/0…-a-transcript/ [...]

]]> By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-38 NL Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:47:00 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-38 John, Yes there is that potential. It would make no difference to the liability that the landlord had been defrauded by an agent or third party. As ever, landlords should chose letting agents with care. John,
Yes there is that potential. It would make no difference to the liability that the landlord had been defrauded by an agent or third party. As ever, landlords should chose letting agents with care.

]]> By: Johnhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-37 John Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:27:45 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-37 There is potential here for a scam by rogues. When a landlord advertises a property for rent, such as in Gumtree or a local paper he is often approached by agents offering to let it for him, often with tenants ready to move in. What is to stop a crook to pose as an agent, put in his friend as tenant, fail to lodge the deposit, and then share the penalty proceeds ? I was appraoched by an agent, who took the deposit and rent, and failed to lodge it, and has now disappeared owing me, (and other landlords), rent. It is terrible that I could become liable for 3 times deposit, ahving lost both deposit and rent. Comments please. There is potential here for a scam by rogues. When a landlord advertises a property for rent, such as in Gumtree or a local paper he is often approached by agents offering to let it for him, often with tenants ready to move in.
What is to stop a crook to pose as an agent, put in his friend as tenant, fail to lodge the deposit, and then share the penalty proceeds ?

I was appraoched by an agent, who took the deposit and rent, and failed to lodge it, and has now disappeared owing me, (and other landlords), rent.

It is terrible that I could become liable for 3 times deposit, ahving lost both deposit and rent.

Comments please.

]]> By: AMAhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-36 AMA Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:29:10 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-36 J.- I don’t think sympathy is the issue here, more one of justice. Should a landlord be penalised because he was unlucky enough to choose, at best, an incompetent agent or at worst a rogue? Sagacity is not shared out equally. Without allowing a court discretion in applying 214(4) I suggest that justice may be thwarted. By the way, your computer clock is still set to BST. J.- I don’t think sympathy is the issue here, more one of justice. Should a landlord be penalised because he was unlucky enough to choose, at best, an incompetent agent or at worst a rogue? Sagacity is not shared out equally. Without allowing a court discretion in applying 214(4) I suggest that justice may be thwarted. By the way, your computer clock is still set to BST.

]]> By: Jhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/09/harvey-v-bamforth-now-with-the-benefit-of-a-transcript/#comment-35 J Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:32:07 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=721#comment-35 @AMA - but there is an answer to that situation. A landlord needs to ensure that his agents are (a) competent and (b) fully insured. If the landlord appoints such agents and then something goes wrong with the deposit such that the tenant issues proceedings for an award of 3x the deposit, the landlord will simply apply to join the agents as a second defendant and require them to compensate him for any losses that were occasioned by their impropper actions. What the law does - and, to my mind, quite properly - is put the onus on landlords to either get up-to-speed with landlord and tenant law themselves or appoint competent agents. Those who do neither are not particularly deserving of sympathy. @AMA – but there is an answer to that situation. A landlord needs to ensure that his agents are (a) competent and (b) fully insured. If the landlord appoints such agents and then something goes wrong with the deposit such that the tenant issues proceedings for an award of 3x the deposit, the landlord will simply apply to join the agents as a second defendant and require them to compensate him for any losses that were occasioned by their impropper actions.

What the law does – and, to my mind, quite properly – is put the onus on landlords to either get up-to-speed with landlord and tenant law themselves or appoint competent agents. Those who do neither are not particularly deserving of sympathy.

]]>