Any risk in pursuing ex-landlord for not complying with tenancy deposit?

[CheekyBanana]

I would be grateful for any advice or experience please?

Long story short: landlord would only renew my tenancy if I agreed not to pursue him for not complying with scheme. He worded it differently, but that's what he meant. I disagreed. Landlord issued s21, which I challenged. He then returned my deposit and re-issued s21. I've since moved out to more expensive flat that I can barely afford.

Letter from his solicitor (inc with returned chq deposit) makes clear that any attempt to claim re not complying with deposit scheme will be heavily challenged and I'll have to pay LLs considerable legal costs. I've been thinking about this for a while now and find myself swaying btw letting it go vs not wanting to be scared off by this dodgy landlord.

Any advice really appreciated. Btw I'm not landlord bashing, my current one is lovely, but the previous one didn't seem to be experienced or to know what the rules are.

Sorry, cross-posts. All docs in place with new landlord.

Perhaps I write to him suggesting I intend to pursue? If he makes offer, great big not, I'll leave it? Any thoughts on this?

I think it would be an utterly pointless waste of your time and energy! The landlord's solicitor would just advise him to wait and see what the claim proceedings say. He is extremely unlikely to offer you a huge cash payment

I think you just need to chalk this one down to experience and move on. You are beginning to sound as grabby as your ex-landlord

Ah okay I understand now.

In that case, he has illegally evicted you.

An S21 (notice only grounds for possession) is only legally enforceable if the deposit is correctly protected.

And as a result of his unlawful actions you have been left out of pocket.

So yeah, I'd sue the slippery git.

(I have previously self represented at my own court case for deposit non-protection and won btw so I do know what I am on about!)

"Where a landlord fails to comply with Tenancy Deposit Protection, there are two sanctions:

Unable to use Section 21 notice

Under Section 21 of Housing Act 1988, a landlord can serve two months' written notice on a tenant in order to terminate a tenancy at the end of a fixed term, or after a fixed term has expired. However, where a landlord fails to comply with Tenancy Deposit Protection, no Section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until the legislation is complied with.
Payment to the tenant

Tenants can make an application to a County Court under the Housing Act 2004 if they believe that their deposit is not being safeguarded, or where they have not been given the prescribed information about the scheme in which the deposit is safeguarded within 30 days of the landlord receiving the deposit.

Where the court is satisfied that the landlord has failed to comply with these requirements, or the deposit is not being held in an authorised scheme, the court must either order the landlord to repay the deposit within 14 days of the making of the order, or order the landlord to pay the deposit to the custodial scheme administrator.

The court may also order the landlord to pay the tenant up to three times the deposit amount within 14 days of the making of the order."

From here

Thanks so very much for info and taking time to post. Feel more encouraged now. Sorry for earlier confusion. Will take time to digest all. Thanks again.

He hasnt illegally evicted you at all. You moved out. You even told him the S21 was wrong, but still moved anyway. If you hadnt moved out and he had gone to court to evict you, then he wouldnt have been able to due to the non protection of deposit.

As everyone has said all along, you do have a case, legally speaking. BUT you got all your deposit back, a sensible judge would ask why you were taking it to court and may make you pay all the costs.

There are tenants that really suffer at the hands of landords, these laws are for them to recover their losses.

But, from the very beginning it seems all you've wanted to hear is people telling you that you're entitled to a big cash payout. You are not.

You're forgetting a very fundamental aspect of UK civil law, which is that you have to prove financial loss occurred.

It didn't. You got your deposit back in full.

When you took on a more expensive flat, that was your choice.

No you don't have to prove financial loss, not for a failure to protect a deposit case.

I brought a small claims case against my ex landlord for not protecting my deposit. They didn't just fail to protect it but actually refused point blank to do so even when I said i would take it to court.

The landlord sent the letting agent to the first directions hearing to give me the deposit back in full but the judge still set a full hearing.

I'd moved out by the time the full case was heard and I still won the case, the LL was ordered to pay me 3x the sum of the deposit by way of penalty.

by the time he gave you your second section 21 notice was he in compliance- it sounds like it is possible to correct an error later
"no Section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until the legislation is complied with."

i would imagine that in a situation where you haven't given a deposit ~(which once you have had it returned is your situatiuon) he is compliant and therefore there is no case.

I think you are being opportunistic and greedy though. He didn't force you to move out- you chose not to sign a new tenancy agreement to retain your right to sue him for non-compliance with the deposit rules- couldn't you have sigend and asked him to protect it going forward

And threatening eviction unlawfully amounts to harrassment of a tenant.

Queen That's very useful to know, thanks (I was a tenant for 15 years, and the deposit protection scheme has been the single biggest advance in tenant protection in all that time).

Mad that the landlord (with enough wherewithal to engage a letting agent) still refused to protect your deposit. Perhaps that's why the max penalty was awarded.

My big beef is that landlords are not required to have an operating licence or any training. It's a business with a peculiar amount of responsibility and yet so many of its practitioners are either utterly clueless or very shady indeed.

like any business, there are crooks. Most landlords are honest. Most are not clueless.

General comment: before taking on a rental, find out where the deposit will go, ask to see a current gas-safe cert, see the state of repair of the place etc etc. If it is very cheap, wonder why.

being a tenant is being a customer. Clueless customers are vulnerable to rip-offs.