The letter of the law!

Most people think of law as being quite boring, and in many respects, they are right.

After all who wants to know (or cares about) the provisions of Section 1 of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978.

Not me, and not least of all because it was repealed some years ago!

Nevertheless, law does have its funny side.

One of the first cases you learn at university is about a dead snail in a drink – it’s not about a snail accidentally getting into the drink.  The woman who drank it knew there had been a snail – it was about who was responsible for the woman being ill.  But no one can ever answer the question of why she was drinking snail drinks in the first place!

Or the case about the carbolic smoke ball company, and whether their advertising posters should be taken at face value or if their offer of £100 if you used their products and still got flu was just a joke.  Again, no one ever talked about why anyone would want to use carbolic smoke as a health remedy!

So, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the law is either boring and/or bizarre.

Which means it’s very refreshing when a Court reaches an entirely sensible decision.  In reality, many of the decisions I see and am involved in are quite sensible, but they are rarely the ones that make the press.

But a recent case is being widely discussed, for being very sensible and fair.

A very large landlord has successfully defeated not one but two appeals against a claim by a former tenant for a whopping £120,000 damages for allegedly breaching their obligations under the deposit protection scheme.

Was the money put in the scheme – yes it was.

Was the money ever at any risk – no it wasn’t.

Did the landlord (or their agents) delay or stall or prevaricate about putting the money away – no, they acted promptly.

So, what did they do wrong to justify a claim that was probably more than the tenant had ever paid in rent throughout his period of occupation!

They didn’t sign the certificate under which the tenant received his confirmation of where the money was.

Whilst the legislation does say that the certificate should be signed, to verify that it is accurate, the fact that there was a covering letter that was signed, and the fact that the certificate was accurate, meant that the tenant had suffered no loss or prejudice, and so was not entitled to the level compensation sought.

Good sense prevailed – at least on the side of the court, and the landlord.  Possibly not on the side of the tenant (or their legal representatives) who are no doubt facing a significant legal bill.

Nevertheless, it does show the importance of making sure you have your paperwork in order.  If the certificate had been signed in the first place, none of this would have happened!

 

Kleyman & Co Solicitors.  The full service law firm.  Dotting your Is and crossing your Ts.