Hi Alex and thank you.
I am wondering if this is the right way to approach my problem and I would not mind if you tell me that it is not.
I need help with formulating a response to the skeleton argument presented by my ex-tenants legal team, if a defence can be identified..
did you read what I wrote earlier in the brief to my problem and do you have access to the advice I was given earlier by joshua from Just Answer?
No court judgement.
We had a directions hearing and judge was not convinced of claimants case and adjourned with permission to restore. he ordered to file and serve skeleton arguement setting out their authority in support of their claim for the proposition that the court may order a penalty when the deposit has been repiad in full prior to the issue of the claim. I have that skeleton argument and they also cite [2014} EWHC 4729 (QB) , case no QB/2013/0671, Okadigbo vs Chan
thank you for your advice. Would the correct answer have been 'for up to x3 the deposit' or are you firm on advising that it is 'x3 the deposit'?
Would it be a defence that they factually did not pay me a deposit on moving in, but increased their ordinary rent payemtns over the first 2-3 months and that thus, I was not able to pay into a deposit scheme at the beginning and ahere to the stipulation of the deposit protection scheme...?
I returned the deposit in full and final settlement and advised that if they did not agree to return the deposit to me. They did not return the deposit, which I took as settlement of the claim. Their solicitors approached me afterwards. Can I now ask court to take into consideration the extensive repair and cleaning cost that I incurred on them moving out, but which I excluded for the final offer to them. Would the fact they did not allow me to show new tenants around and that thus I had a loss of income due to flat consequently not being occupied until I found new tenants, weigh in in any way?
Any other mitigating factors that you can think of in order to keep penalty at x1? Pointing out that penalty is disproportionate and that tenants seemingly motivated by opportunism and greed...?
How do I bring a counter claim into play?
The Housing Act was amended by virtue of section 184 of the Localism Act 2011 and with amendments came in force on 6th April 2012. It gives the court discretion from the mandatory 3 times to a discretionary penalty of between 1 and 3 times the deposit. Would you please check if you now revise your original advice on penalty .
I am told that the only discretion is the amount of the penalty.
I do think that you have not got the full measure of the Housing Act sections 213, 214, 215 which were amended by virtue of section 184 of the Localism Act 2011, coming into force on 6th April 2012. it gave the court discretion as to the penalty it could order form the mandatory 3 times to discretionary penalty of between 1-3 times.
Please advise why I am wrong and you are right.
My question is, can you see any reason why court has discretion not to order penalty?
Would it be a defence that deposit actually had not been paid? Deposit payment has not been evidenced.
I only repaid 'deposit' , as I wanted the matter closed. I thus offered 'deposit' (even thought not received) in full and final settlement of any claim, which they accepted and did not return to me. Claim was subsequent and seem to be motivated by opportunism rather than any sense of injustice.
the only other thi