7th
Mar 2022
A landlord has at last gained possession of their property after the judge, who originally delayed the proceedings because of his ‘odd’ view , ruled that the ‘stop-start’ eviction can proceed after all.
The case had been delayed by two weeks after the judge expressed an ‘odd’ view when stating he has an issue over the tenant’s payment of a fee for a ‘deposit alternative’ service.
A specialist lettings insurance company, Head of Legal & Claims Will Eastman and his team had been working on behalf of the landlord to evict a tenant from his property in Wales….the address remains undisclosed.
The first possession hearing took place in the second week of February when the judge delayed proceedings by ‘suggesting’ the fee the tenant had paid into an alternative deposit replacement scheme, was in fact a ‘prohibited payment’ under the Tenant Fees Act.
Eastman says: “The Judge was unable to be convinced otherwise at that hearing and adjourned the matter.”
After the original ruling the final hearing was held two weeks later at the County Court in Swansea, the judge’s issue was not resolved but he still allowed the eviction to go ahead.
The reason why the ruling was made in the landlord’s was because Eastman and his team issued both Section 8 and Section 21 notices to the tenant.
The judge however stuck to his guns by saying he still believed the deposit alternative payment is potentially prohibited, and gave the landlord his chance to legally argue his case in a later trial or accept the ruling on the Section 8 notice.
Unsurprisingly the landlord declined the judge’s kind offer of a later case
Eastman was obviously relieved by the ruling however he has grave misgivings over the judge’s view as there is a real danger because the issue has not been legally resolved, and it could still ‘cloud’ further judgements as judges may refer back to the case’s original ruling; this could seriously hinder or even put a hold on the whole ‘alternative deposit’ scheme market.
Eastman adds: “I suspect, although hope I am proven wrong, that this is not going to be the last we hear of it.
“In fact, we have another claim, in Wales and where a replacement scheme is in place with no rent arrears at present. We might not have to wait very long at all.
“But my view still remains that the intention of Parliament could not have been to catch such fees for these schemes as a prohibited payment.”
News Archive »