A claims firm operating on a no-win, no-fee basis is claiming an overwhelming success rate for tenants who successfully claim against agents and landlords over tenancy deposit rules.
Bournemouth-based Tenants Deposit Claimline was registered last December and says that 92% of tenants who have filed a claim through it have been successful.
The business does not focus not on whether tenants’ deposits have been correctly protected, but simply on whether the tenants have received the right paperwork in the form of Prescribed Information.
The firm’s website says: “You may be entitled to compensation. You could claim up to three times your deposit on a successful claim.”
The service has a free telephone line and offers a £50 referral fee for leads that convert into business.
It is the first time we have spotted a claims firm operating in this sector, although the firm may well not be the only one.
However, only last week, specialist lawyer Tessa Shepperson advised landlords: “I have heard rumours that tenants are now starting to trawl through the regulations to see if they can find any errors in the Prescribed Information forms so they can prevent evictions taking place, so it is worth taking a bit of trouble over the form.”
Critics say that the law and the way it was written (and then amended) is a pig’s ear – and that it is loaded in favour of tenants, and against the simple principle of common sense.
Case law shows that a number of landlords who acted within the spirit of the law have been caught out simply because of a problem with their paperwork – and sometimes, a problem they didn’t know, and couldn’t have known, existed.
For example, talks are still going on into the recent Superstrike case, and what the implications are for landlords who thought they were only doing what the tenancy deposit schemes told them to – and now find they may have broken the law.
The schemes have still to issue definitive advice to agents and landlords with tenancies that went from fixed to statutory periodic.
In another recent county court case, a possession order was overturned because the landlord’s name and address did not appear on the Prescribed Information. The agent supplied their own details, saying they had simply used the template provided by the TDS.
This particular case has puzzled some experts who wondered how the tenant might have spotted a possible loophole.
Tenants Deposit Claimline is here:
https://tinyurl.com/qe9c7mm
.jpg)
.png)
Comments
Just another excuse for lawyers to rip off the general public
As posted on same story on LAT
What has to be remembered here, whether any of us likes it or not, is that not only is the Law the Law, there is no such thing as spirit of it (otherwise I would not have had 5 speeding fines in my 45 years driving!!) and the rules have been very clearly flagged up as needing to be abided by and respected.
I have said before I don't care which way any of this goes as it makes not one jot of difference to me either way - I just want clarity as I advise clients on the law.
Why is the PI as important as protection?
Because the CoA has said so in two cases, Suurpere (where the lead Judge could not have been much clearer) and Ayannuga, where the agent was firmly told the Court would decide what mattered and whether omissions were technicalities, NOT the agent!!
The PI requirements are very clear the problem is TDS screwed up – again.
There have been those advising for several years – a minority and usually shouted down by those saying the Law is an ass, which it may be but has to be followed as with my speeding fines – that a periodic tenancy was a new tenancy and that the TDP provisions, both of them protect and PI – had to be correctly completed.
Like it or not this is the Law and a key fundamental part of it, and one that everyone had better acknowledge whether they like it or not, is that issuing PI that is CORRECT is just as important as protecting the deposit. It's simply a part of the process.
If this forum is read more by self managing landlords than LAT a piece of advice/warning for you. Check all your PI forms (assuming you have them) as 80% of them will probably contain a SIGNIFICANT error or omission.
Mind what you do then is debatable
I agree with G W - totally disgusting on the part of the Lawyers and the Tenants. There is nothing moral about these people. The Landlords in these cases have obviously 'done the right thing' as far as they are aware.
How low can people go?
Disgusting.
These companies are simply PROFITEERING in trying to catch landlords out in situations where they could not have known anything was wrong, having followed deposit scheme rules etc.
They are causing landlord/tenant relationships to break down - although it is likely that only tenants who have an issue with their landlords will try this on, or those who simply try to play every trick in the book for their own gain.
I wonder how many of the people who work for these companies are also landlords?? Perhaps their deposit paperwork should be checked out and they be given a taste of their own medicine....