Evicted tenant has left belongings and not contactable

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "01/01/2014 - 14:16":

Hi to Industry observer. Thanks for coming back on this. With regards your comment:

Preoceed with great caution. The Prescribed Information served on the tenants to comply with TDP should have a post tenancy contact address in it. My money is 100% that it doesn’t, in which case you have committed an offence. So if you chase the tenants too hard you could end up on a loser courtesy of a s213 claim against you.

So what can I do here please? Thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Puzzler " at "24/12/2013 - 13:57":

Hi @Puzzler

Thanks for your feedback, She is fine and contacted the agent twice to say she will collecting items recently but then is completely untraceable

Thanks

Thanks Gary

The experince and ongoing difficulties that we have had with out agent certainly justifies the ABC rule. Thank you

@Gary

You miss the point it is Lead Tenant responsibility to notify the Scheme of CHANGES NOT provide the original one. That is down to LL or agent.

Don't you think that comment just underpins and emphasises how important the contact address details are, and putting them in PI?

I say again it is not a forwarding address it is a post tenancy contact address. Mum, solicitor, bank, employer, best friend, mistress/lover etc doesn't matter. Contact, NOT where they may or may not be living.

I had written an even lengthier reply to your latest on contact address but in switching pages Mark's site lost it and I really cannot be bothered to argue it any longer. You just keep taking the risk and omit information Statute says (no matter how stupid or inconvenient it may seem) you MUST provide within the PI.

Contact address was definitely mentioned in Ayannuga or if not in Suurpere as one of many deficieincies in a very poor attempt at serving PI, I say no more. Justy keep taking the risk.

By the way lead tenant has no legal standing at all not mentioned in the Statuite just dreamed up by DPS and copied by MyDepposits. Just surprised there has not been a case yet where a lead tenant runs off with a substantial deposit in a multi tenanted situation. It will come.

@ Jital and s213 offences

I don't know the answer all I am doing (as with the need for contact address no matter how daft the need to do so) is flagging up a potential problem. Attack is always the best form of defence all I am saying is the more you push your probably justifiable claims against a tenant (for anything) the more likely they are to counterclaim.

The classic is non repairing etc by a LL pursuing arrears. But hot on its heels now post the 2011 Localism Act is the tenant scouring paperwork to make sure Landlord or agent has discharged TDP obligations correctly AT ALL TIMES (i,.e. if tenany renews or goes periodic) and if they have not threatening to make a counterclaim.

I have one now where a LL is being a complete chump, tenant just wants their deposit back and will leave LL alone. But LL is persisting and has foolishly some months ago confessed they had not protected the deposit and refunded it. Open and shut case

Industry Observer. I am sorry you seem fit to lambast me when I have asked a perfectly legitimate question. The tenant is from the Czech Republic ( and yes I did check immigration status etc) What are us mere mortals to do when the tenant does not provide the landlord with ANY address. I asked for relatives in UK. None. So do I put a Czech Republic address on. I am asking for your advice but all you seem to want to do is criticise.

@Gary

Sincere apologies - sackcloth and ashes for me. It was the debate about is contact address deficiency an actual item mentioned in one of those two cases, and I am 100% sure it is and it is actually in Ayannuga and the MyDeposits case as far better authorities than me have referred to it in print in industry journals etc.

Anyway back to the plot and to be more helpful.

This is a real problem I agree. When PI content first came out agents especially were up in arms constantly referring to this stupid need to provide a forwarding address when the tenant themselves won't know it. Agreed, but it is a post tenancy contact address and they must all have someone on this planet that if heaven forbid they went under a bus (whether pushed or not by landlord!!) someone could contact.

What details are there on any referencing application form? Next of Kin, employer, bank etc etc. The only address that should never be used is your own as Landlord or agent.

It just needs creativity everyone has someone - family, friend, solicitor, all s/e tenants must have an accountant etc etc anyone will do.

It is a pain I agree, but it is specifically there so the Scheme can contact them, or at least attempt to in the case of a dispute and especially DPS with the absentee tenant/stat dec system. That's why it went in originally.

Apologies again for acting like The Gruffalo, that really isn't like me (Oh yes it is said Mark!!)

Looked for a suitable post to put this in to save starting another on Prescribed Information. So there am I thinking I have this Deposit Protection thing cracked. End of 6 month term? Statutory Periodic - then re-serve prescribed information. As per advice from various schemes and letting bodies. And then I read this off Property Hawk by Fidler and Pepper http://www.propertyhawk.co.uk/index.php?page=magazine&id=602

"If you issue a new tenancy agreement you will need to re-protect the deposit. But what happens if you let your tenancy run over onto a periodic tenancy. It was thought that you did not need to re-protect the deposit. However the ruling in the case of Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues on 14 June 2013 caused some confusion when the Court of Appeal held that a periodic tenancy creates a new tenancy, and because of this the deposit needs to be re-protected. This has caused some panic among practitioners, deposit protections schemes and landlords.

However, on further reading of the judgment we can now all relax a little - the facts specific to the case are that an Assured Shorthold Tenancy commenced on 8 January 2007, before the regulations came in regarding deposit protection. As there were no requirements to protect the deposit at that time it was held by the landlord.

The fixed period of the tenancy ended on 7 January 2008, and it was allowed to run over onto a periodic tenancy. The Judges ruled that at that point a new tenancy was created and the deposit must be protected within the deposit regulations.

The ruling did not state that all protected deposits must be re-protected when the tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy. If you have protected your deposit as required and allow your tenancy to roll over on to a periodic tenancy you do not need to do anything further"

Now I feel like the robot off the insurance advert..........confused!!!.

Industry Observer please do not shout at me 🙂

.

Gary

All I can suggest is don't believe everything you read and, above all, always do the safe thing.

If Superstrike had said exactly what Fidler and Pepper (are they the old boys in the theatre box in The Muppets?!!) suggest, and the case had been decided on such specific narrow facts that only ever applied to that one case, then why did 95% of informed opinion think otherwise.

I'll admit Grant Shapps is not informed opinion but even he came out with his statement that it wasn't what the Law intended. Odd statement as maybe it was!!

Re-protect and you are safe, don't bother and see what happens?

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "24/12/2013 - 11:55":

> Bear in mind though the statute takes precedence over the contract.

Does paragraph 1(6) of Part I of Schedule 1 (This Part of this Schedule is without prejudice to the provisions of any contract requiring the bailor to take delivery of the goods.) mean that if a Part I notice is sufficient to allow the landlord to dispose of the goods (i.e. no money owed before service of the notice) then the contract takes precedence?
The case where the contract gives no time for the tenant to collect the goods before they become the property of the landlord is disputable as it is an unfair contract term.

Reply to the comment left by "Puzzler " at "24/12/2013 - 13:57":

Good point! I suppose one could assume this has been covered but sometimes we can all assume the obvious and as such miss it! She is a missing person in all respects!