01420 565310

Subtotal: £0.00

No products in the basket.

Releasing the deposit after an order for possession

We sometimes get asked about the apparent arbitrariness of judges when it comes to ordering the release of the deposit when making an order for possession based on rental arrears. Some judges make orders along the lines of “All or any deposit monies paid by the Defendant to the Claimant be credited to and set off against judgment debt together with any costs outstanding”. Others refuse to deal with the deposit at all and say that it is a matter for the relevant deposit protection scheme despite the landlord/landlord’s representatives making submissions requesting an order such as the above.

The fact that the judge does not make reference to the deposit in the order does not stop the landlord from claiming the deposit as payment towards any judgment for arrears, interest and legal costs obtained, however you will have to follow the prescribed process that is required under the rules for each scheme. For example, the DPS requires landlords to make a single claim and obtain a statutory declaration before they agree to the release of the money to the landlord. It is therefore important for agents to familiarise themselves with the rules of the scheme that they are registered with when advising landlords on how to proceed.

You can view all our posts on deposits by following this link.

2 thoughts on “Releasing the deposit after an order for possession”

  1. The “arbitrariness of judges” is not just “apparent” it is a standard feature of all lower court action. In a number of cases recently concerning other people as well as my own affairs I have found the standard of District Judges to be frankly appalling.

    They try to make up the law as they go along and refuse to listen to unrepresented litigants and/or those whom they have decided in advance must be in the wrong. They seem to be a bunch of failed solicitors of limited intelligence.

    At Circuit level the judges are generally QC’s it seems and of a far higher standard. Therefore litigants who fall foul of arbitrary and unintelligible decisions by DJ’s are well advised to appeal. If you are refused permission to appeal but offered an Oral Hearing, take it – because you often CAN achieve a sensible result.

    1. With respect we do not agree, DJs are in general extremely overworked and also are expected to be experts in a very wide range of law. PainSmith Solicitors would certainly not claim any expertise outside its specialist field of Landlord and Tenant Law! DJs are all solicitors or Barristers with several years experience and undergo very tough selection exercises. Inevitably CJ are far more qualified but it is certainly not true to say that they are all, or even mostly, QCs. In addition CJs have the benefit of sitting on far fewer cases and having far more time to consider each one.

      The problem is less with the DJs than with the underfunded and overworked civil court system.

Leave a Comment

Quick Links

Registered address

PainSmith Solicitors,
1 Mansfield Business Park,
Station Approach,
Lymington Bottom Road,
Medstead, Hampshire
GU34 5PZ

Nice to know

Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number 562686)

Painsmith Solicitors Limited trading as Painsmith Solicitors, Director: Marveen Smith. Registered No. 07617210.

Scroll to Top