How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 71053
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

In October 2009 I let my home on an 8 month Assured Shorthold

Customer Question

In October 2009 I let my home on an 8 month Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The Tenants remained at the property two months after the expiry of the fixed term and did not pay the Rent for this extra period. They also damaged some furniture and failed to look after the garden. I have submitted a claim in the County Court (28/09/2015) which also includes interest on the amount outstanding. I have now received a copy of their defence, and am rather concerned that among the 60 statements as to why they are not liable, there is a heading " Section 36 (2) Limitation Act 1980." The summary states that " the claim in this case falls to be dismissed pursuant to the equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Section 36 (2)."
Do I have to take this seriously?
I can provide much more detail if required.
William Boyle
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
Why didn't you act sooner?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I forwarded dispute to the TDS in Feb. 2011. The tenants refused to allow them to adjudicate and also refused to acknowledge that there was anything to pay. I raised the question of payment again in August 2011, and the response was that they would issue proceedings for the return of their Deposit. Nothing transpired.I raised the matter .of the amount outstanding again in June 2015.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
On the face of it, you do not seem to be time barred. You are just within six years. You are only just within six years but you are there.
The court is not going to like the delay much but it is not void under the Limitation Act. They are trying to argue that equitable jurisdiction applies giving the court power to dismiss for reasons such as unconscionable delay. There is substantial delay here. The court will not like that. It is not safe to ignore the point but I think you would probably over come it.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I am a bit tied up for the rest of the day. Could we make contact tomorrow?A very helpful reply so far.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Yes, no problem.
I will be on at somet point.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I thought that it would be sensible to send you all the relevant points raised by the Defendants. These are attached, although the second page may arrive separately. I do not understand what they mean.With regard to the lengthy delay in taking the matter to Court, one of the reasons was serious health problems. Should I mention this in mitigation?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
There is lengthy delay and the court isn't going to like that. Serious health issues may as well be relied upon but courts do dislike delay.
I've only got the second page but essentially it is as I said. They are trying to argue that it should be struck out for delay which is a good point I'm afraid.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
The other page attached I hope.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Yes, got it.
Was there something else you wanted to know about this?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Is there an need for me to understand 'Is there anything I need to understand about the detail of the Defendants claims in items 44 - 52?. I do not intend to be legally represented at the hearing.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
only what I mentioned above.
You are not statutorily time barred but they are arguing that you should be equittably time barred.