|
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.
|
|
Read more... [Deposits]
|
|
|
More problems with the Deposit Protection Regulations |
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.
|
|
Employment Law - What's new for 2012? |
|
As always, there are plenty of changes afoot in the world of employment for 2012.
Already, we have seen the annual compensation limits rise. As of 1st February 2012, the limit on a week’s pay (used to calculate statutory redundancy payments and the basic award in unfair dismissal) has increased from £400 to £430. This means that the maximum basic award and redundancy payment has increased from £12,000 to £12,900. The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal rises from £68,400 to £72,300. As a result, the maximum overall award for unfair dismissal is now £85,200.
|
|
Read more... [Employment Law - What's new for 2012?]
|
|
Rights for Agency Workers |
Do you use temporary agency workers? If so, there was a change in the law which came into effect on 1st October 2011.
Businesses using staff supplied through agencies already had obligations to agency workers, as they were deemed to be “workers” under employment law (rather than as “employees”). In addition, they had a responsibility to ensure that the agency they used to supply the staff was dealing with their workers correctly and in line with equality law. All “workers” already had entitlements such as paid annual leave, protections the National Minimum Wage, protection from discrimination, protection under the Working Time Regulations, etc.
The rights of agency workers were extended when the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 (“the Regulations”) came into force on 1st October 2011.
|
|
Read more... [Rights for Agency Workers]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
News
and are bound by their code of conduct