|
Written by Alastair Dunnett
|
|
Monday, 05 March 2012 00:00 |
|
Recently, the rules concerning the protection of a tenant’s
deposit have been watered down by a number of cases. There has now been a shift in favour of the
landlord.
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:41 |
|
Read more... [Deposits]
|
|
|
More problems with the Deposit Protection Regulations |
|
Written by Alastair Dunnett
|
|
Friday, 02 March 2012 15:02 |
I have recently reported on how a couple of recent cases had watered down the effect of the Deposit Protection Regulations and since writing these articles a further problem with the scheme has come to light.
It has proved quite common for landlords (or their agents) to find that they encounter difficulties recovering the deposit if the tenant leaves and refuses to cooperate with them.
If the landlord/agent is entitled to the deposit from the Deposit Protection Service but the tenant indicates that they are not prepared to use the DPS arbitration procedure or allow the landlord / agent to use the single claim process in order to recover the deposit, then the Deposit Protection Service have indicated to landlords/agents that they need to obtain a Court Order that expressly states that the deposit must be returned to the landlord / tenant.
Whilst, costs aside, obtaining a Court order does not sound much of a problem, issues arise because the Deposit Protection Service only appear to release the deposit if the Court Order states that they must do so. As the Deposit Protection Service also state that they must not be named as a party in the proceedings, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to convince a Court to name the Deposit Protection Service in the Court Order. The reason for this is that a Court would not tend to name someone in an Order they make unless that person is a party to those proceedings.
This being the case, the only option for landlords / agents in this instance appears to be to obtain a Court Order against the tenant and then make a separate application for a third party debt order against the Deposit Protection Service. This is a mechanism used to enforce Court Judgments and is often used as an alternative to the bailiff, attachment of earnings orders, etc …
Obtaining a Court Judgment and then a third party debt order is a particularly long way round and inevitably involves the landlord / agent being put to some considerable cost, which they are unlikely to be able to recover from the tenant.
It certainly seems that this arrangement is quite unsatisfactory, but whether anything is ever done about it remains to be seen.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:05 |
|
Local firm helps road traffic accident victim win £3.6 million settlement |
|
Written by Senara Shapland
|
|
Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:00 |
|
Press Release
Local firm, Veitch Penny Solicitors are celebrating
after helping the victim of a road traffic accident secure a £3.6
million settlement, plus £205,000 per year for life for future care in a
complex personal injury case. The personal injury case, which took
10 years to settle, demonstrates Veitch Penny’s determination to ensure
clients get the correct care and expert assessments for fair
compensation awards after a traumatic experience.
The matter
involved a healthy 29 year old woman who was involved in a road traffic
collision when stationary. She suffered moderate injuries, including
multiple fractures and soft tissue injuries, which were serious enough
to require several operations.
These injuries developed into a
series of complex issues which were difficult to asses due to their
complicated and changing nature, and saw the continued deterioration of
our clients’ health. Her injuries included; Complex Regional Pain
Syndrome, Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and “Centralisation
syndrome” which caused incontinence and bowel problems. In addition she
also continued to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result
of the accident, and chronic depression as a result of her complex
medical conditions and loss of career. She is now confined to a
wheelchair and requires considerable assistance with personal care,
bathing, dressing and housework. It is unusual for a road traffic
accident to take 10 years to settle, however Veitch Penny recognised our
clients unique circumstances and endeavoured to make sure she received
the maximum award for her injuries and future care needs. Veitch
Penny Solicitors also specialise in wills, probate, conveyancing,
general litigation and tax and employment advice for members of the
general public, as well as actively working with local businesses and
employers. |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:03 |
|
Christmas Opening Hours 2011 |
|
Written by Veitch Penny LLP
|
|
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:47 |
|
Please note: Our Christmas operating hours are as follows:
- Friday 23rd December to Tuesday 27th December (inclusive) - Closed
- Wednesday 28th December to Friday 30th December (inclusive) - Open
- Monday 2nd January - Closed
- Normal opening hours resume from Tuesday 3rd January
Wishing you happiness at Christmas and best wishes for the coming year from all the Partners and Staff at Veitch Penny. |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:21 |
|
Review of Jones V Kernott |
|
Written by Alastair Dunnett
|
|
Friday, 18 November 2011 16:42 |
|
In November 2011 the Supreme Court delivered what most lawyers have described as a “long awaited judgment” that is of significant importance of couples that live together.
Until this decision the leading authority on the respective shares that people own in their houses was the 2007 case of Stack v Dowden. This said the Courts were able to look at the intentions of the parties at the time they bought the property and imply that they own the property other than on a 50/50 basis. At Court of Appeal stage of Jones v Kernott the Court (whose decision was later overturned) stated that Stack v Dowden had not allow the Courts to find an intention of the parties when “none was expressly uttered nor inferentially formed”
I should state at this point that these cases are based on the issues that arise when two people are said to own a property. Whether someone who is not named as a legal owner can claim an interest in a property as a result of their actions is a slightly different question altogether and, although relevant, is not what was asked in Jones v Kernott.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:13 |
|
Read more... [Review of Jones V Kernott]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |