UK Landlord Forum / Life

A family of tenants moved out two months short of there agreement and now claiming 7 x deposit with n w n f solicitor

No tenancy as they were job hunting and initially wanted 3 months let then renewed so trying to claim 2 breaches of law ; therefore 3x deposit plus deposit

about £13878 plus vat plus interest plus firms fees. Damage was caused on purpose to make landlord look bad as group of engineers damaged boiler

system pipe work caused leak was brand new fitted boiler. Broke bathroom door lock when away on business so claiming no privacy on bathroom lock.

Wanted to go home to overseas country for one month not pay rent then come back and pay rent . Moved out beginning of March but had text msg saying wanting to stay to

May 9th !!!!! Gave landlord like 16 days notice and demand deposit back !!!!! No tenancy agreement as they refused one had a gentlemans agreement 2 months in advance

Tenants now have a jobbing no win no fee solicitor trying to claim two breaches of AST and interest plus fees. States all sorts of untruths. 

So you broke the rules of taking a deposit and not protecting it?

I take it that you did not protect the deposit? I don't understand the bit about a group of engineers damaging the boiler,how did this come about?

If you have not followed the deposit rules (including the ones around "prescribed information"), my understanding - taken from many posts on this blog and forum - is that it is always best to settle.

In my case, I was happy to settle for 2 x deposit (one for each tenancy). One thing I had been informally advised by two people (one a lawyer, the other a housing advisor) who claimed to know the system well is that the typical court award is not usually *anywhere near* the maximum, unless there are special circumstances. The lawyer told me that more than once they had encountered judges who openly said "I don't particularly like this law, and therefore am inclined to award the minimum".

I was also conscious that the offer in hand was objectively "reasonable" and that it may reflect badly on me in a later court case if I had declined it (saying that, they had not formalised their offer as a Part 36 which I was expecting them to do).

A question for more knowledgeable posters: if the OP were to approach the tenants directly with an offer to settle (assuming they were willing to do so) would that put the NWNF fee claim on ice?

Even as a once aggreived tenant, I think there is something quite unpleasant about the way these NWNF firms operate, in bombarding landlordws with excessive costs in an attempt to frighten them into settling.  What is to stop the landlord on the receiving end taking the NWNF firm out of the process entirely by opening good faith negotiations with the tenant?

Quote from: Luther44 on June 28, 2022, 11:51:37 AMWhat is to stop the landlord on the receiving end taking the NWNF firm out of the process entirely by opening good faith negotiations with the tenant?

The tenant's agreement with the firm who've taken on the case on the conditional fee basis.
If they try and cut the legal firm out, the legal firm with want their fees from the tenant.

The whole basis of these claims is for the firms to only take cases that they can't lose and the landlord is essentially negotiating to minimise what they have to pay.

The penalties and what the court will award are trivial compared to the fees if the case goes to court.
A firm taking a case on a conditional basis (no win no fee) can claim their costs in court plus a "win bonus" which can double the costs they claim.