Return of Deposit Queries....

Strictly speaking, protection cannot be extended to tenancies where the information specified in paragraph 14.3 has not been entered into the TDS tenancy database by the Member. This must be done within 14 days of the deposit being received by the Member. However, if the information is not entered, TDS will cover the deposit as long as it is held by a Member. But if there is a dispute at the end of the tenancy, and information has not been entered into the TDS database, the deposit will be awarded to the tenant without formal adjudication.

Taking the meaning of this strictly then they are saying they will award the deposit to the tenant if the information has not been entered into the database, by the end of the tenancy (it does not say within 14 days if you read it carefully)

thought you would have been first to point this out Premier!!

Premier wrote: »

...and you say you are not deliberately trying to argue with me? :rolleyes:

It's past tense, not present tense.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

has is present tense, [had is past] ?? ??

sorry yes, I was(am) deliberately arguing with you on this occasion!!!
not very helpful - i'll take myself off for a talking to!

iamstacie wrote: »

Thank you. I'm not bothered about the 3x deposit, not least because my actual tenancy started prior to April 07 and the law only says it 'should' be protected with any extensions to the AST so getting a judge to agree to 3x deposit would be very difficult, especially when they did comply eventually. I only really want what's mine.

I think I may be getting towards a result now anyway, after I asked them to call back regarding why it wasn't protected in time they rang to say they've left a message for the landlord asking if they can release it in full to me, and then they will foot the bill out of the money he pays them each month as no inventory was taken (i've noted date/time/name in case of further problems). This will just be for the £90 cleaning he's invented, as the LA knows as well as I do there were no arrears.

Well done for persisting: I agree with your first paragraph. All I would say is that sometimes if you send a letter as backup, when a LA/LL sees your request there before him/her in black and white they realise that you are deadly serious about getting your deposit back & it's sometimes enough of a kick up the backside for them to get their cheque book out or get down to the bank and sort an immediate transfer.

For the LA to look at losing some of their commission to cover any deduction is a sign that they realise that *they* are in the wrong too: their own contract with the LL may have required them to do an inventory and may clearly state that they are responsible for registering the deposit in good time. Sometimes LLs/LAs do this "good cop/ bad cop" thing where they play one off against the other, with neither wanting to accept responsibility.Ultimately , however, it is down to the LL.

I hope you get your deposit back in the next few days without any further difficulty - do update us and we can offer you virtual cake by way of celebration . (and when it's over, please consider writing to Shelter/CAB campaigns officers to give them your experience of the Tenancy Deposit Regs in action - if tenants and LLs just keep quiet when the system doesn't work for them, there'll be no pressure for change)

redcar wrote: »

I do (sigh) have to agree with you on this point but it seems this is what TDS is doing from threads here and elsewhere. I'm not sure if its because people (tenants) aren't highlighting the TDS rules to the TDS when the dispute arises but they (TDS) are not always returning the full deposit to tenant by default in these circumstances.

I agree, the evidence suggests some people are being misled, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hopefully with the benefit of my post, those that are misled can now return to the TDS and remind them of their own rules.