The no win, no fee company that dealt with this case may have thought they’d found a loophole that would net them even more cash – but the court didn’t agree and threw the claim out.
The circumstances of the Rent Repayment Order submitted by the company on behalf of the tenants in this case are fairly typical: they identified an area with a requirement for Selective Licensing, and contacted tenants they believed to be affected in search of business and a healthy commission.
Two of the three tenants decided to proceed with a claim for the Rent Repayment Order. And, as they said they didn’t have a certificate for their deposit and the landlord had misplaced their copy, the tenants also submitted a further claim for breaching the legal requirement to use a recognised scheme.
Tellingly, a third tenant – whose circumstances were exactly the same – declined to submit any claim.
The deposit had, in fact, been secured in a recognised scheme, which was quickly proven by the experts at Landlord Licensing & Defence. The tribunal agreed there was no case to answer – but not before the landlord was subjected to the stress of legal proceedings.
Unfortunately, there is no defence to not having the correct licence even if, as in this case, the landlord is unaware a requirement for Selective Licensing has been introduced. But with the help of Landlord Licensing & Defence, the Rent Repayment Order claim was settled for less than half the original amount that had been demanded.
The landlord was still required to hand over a significant sum of cash for what amounted to an administrative error. Keeping on top of regulations is essential for anyone who owns or manages privately rented property, as is being meticulous about keeping records and paperwork.
If the landlord had been able to provide the certificate when asked, no doubt the company advising the tenants would have backed off from the deposit claim. But the case illustrates how seemingly trivial oversights can have costly repercussions.
CS1615
