PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Getting my TDS deposit back

Options
1…7891012

Comments

  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    neverdespairgirl wrote: »
    ...As I say, it's my opinion, and I could well be wrong.
    Well the property barrister who wrote the article doesn't agree with your opinion, nor does the District Judge who maintains the site, nor apparently the judge who ruled in Prancer's case
    neverdespairgirl wrote:
    BUT, and this is the important thing, at the moment it's not clear. So you can't just state, as you have, that it is clear!
    There is nothing wrong with what I have posted. I have backed it up with the sources which I have quoted. You are entitled to disagree if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to suggest I shouldn't post the information by implying it is irresponsible or irritating.

    I'm sure the readers will decide for themselves whether to take the advice of an unknown poster or that on the sourced articles I have mentioned.

    Hopefully my posts will prevent people being misled by unsubstantiated opinion that has otherwise populated this forum in the past.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • neverdespairgirl
    neverdespairgirl Posts: 16,501 Forumite
    Premier wrote: »
    Well the property barrister who wrote the article doesn't agree with your opinion, nor does the District Judge who maintains the site, nor apparently the judge who ruled in Prancer's case


    There is nothing wrong with what I have posted.

    No, they don't agree with me. There is not a clear answer on this point.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have posted about some people's opinions on the 3 x issue. It's valuable information.

    What is wrong is your assertion that the matter is clear.
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • neverdespairgirl
    neverdespairgirl Posts: 16,501 Forumite
    Premier wrote: »
    Hopefully my posts will prevent people being misled by unsubstantiated opinion that has otherwise populated this forum in the past.

    :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    redcar wrote: »
    I think the problem in prancer's case was a failure to make the point that schemes themselves require registration within 14 days so if that is missed then the deposit is not being held in accordance with the scheme. The is underlined by schemes (TDS) refusing to arbitrate if the 14 day deadline is missed.

    This is just not true, as well you know.

    The schemes are accepting to protect deposits after the 14 day period and although one scheme suggests it may not arbitrate where such deposit is registered late, it would automatically award the deposit to the tenant at the end of the tenancy if it were to abide by this rule of their own making.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    neverdespairgirl wrote: »
    No, they don't agree with me. There is not a clear answer on this point.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you have posted about some people's opinions on the 3 x issue. It's valuable information.

    What is wrong is your assertion that the matter is clear.

    Well how clear do you want it to be? :confused:

    The judge of the court that rules in the matter has the same opinion as the sources I quote having read the statute as written, at least where Prancer was concerned.

    Yes, there is a right to appeal that at a higher court is someone wishes to spend time & money doing so - but there is no reason to believe the decision would necessarily be overturned even if it went to appeal. Just because someone doesn't agree to the outcome of a case is not a valid reason on which it can be appealled.


    You really are clutching at straws if the best arguement you can come up with is to ignore the evidence as given and suggest that a court might decide differently if someone took the matter to appeal and could prove the the basis on which the original decision was arrived at was somehow flawed.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • redcar_2
    redcar_2 Posts: 631 Forumite
    No I believe they would only be granted leave to appeal if ... the judge maybe also thought it wasn't clear. Prancer said about his judge:

    He did though give us permission to appeal saying it would be in the public interest as it's wrong that so many judges disagree and give different verdicts. He also admitted he could be wrong on his interpretation of the law.
  • HGLTsuperstar
    HGLTsuperstar Posts: 1,904 Forumite
    Guys I appreciate all your help but please can you take your tit-for-tat bickering onto a different thread so we can keep this one to the matter in hand.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    redcar wrote: »
    No I believe they would only be granted leave to appeal if ... the judge maybe also thought it wasn't clear. Prancer said about his judge:

    He did though give us permission to appeal saying it would be in the public interest as it's wrong that so many judges disagree and give different verdicts. He also admitted he could be wrong on his interpretation of the law.

    The post by Prancer doesn't specify the type of judge that presided in the case. Normally, in a small claims court this is a District Judge and where an appeal does actually take place, this is then done by a Circuit Judge, again in the County Court (so I don't believe that any decision would set any legal precident either as it would still be a County Court).

    Only in the exceptional case that the matter was originally presided over by a Circuit Judge, would the matter be appealled in the High Court, the decision of which might be used as legal precident.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    HGLTsuperstar wrote: »
    Guys I appreciate all your help but please can you take your tit-for-tat bickering onto a different thread so we can keep this one to the matter in hand.
    But, with respect, this is related to the matter in hand.

    See post#102
    Premier wrote:
    HGLTsuperstar wrote: »
    The plot thickens. It was registered with the TDS but not until over a month after it was taken. TDS confirmed this is against the law. The deposit is being held by the LA as "stakeholder" and cannot be released without the written consent of LL who is still not answering. TDS say I can lodge a dispute through them but this will take about 2 months and then only if they say they can take the case on. And only then will I get my deposit back not any compensation for the fact that I need the money now (and am entitled to it). Not received any correspondence from LL or LA so don't even have a checking-out form or know how much, if any, of deposit LL wants to hold back.
    AAGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    Why haven't you done this?

    If they won't consider the dispute due to the LL being delinquent in registering the details, you'll win by default
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=13168235&postcount=14

    If you want the money back soonest, this would be the best route as court action will take longer.

    By failing to allow the scheme to act to resolve the dispute, it is you that the court may not be pleased with, and you certainly are not mitigating any loss if you consider you have any claim for the delay in getting your deposit back.


    If your reason for not doing what was suggested was because you think you might be be entitled to claim 3x the deposit back by going to court, then it is important you understand the position fully.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • HGLTsuperstar
    HGLTsuperstar Posts: 1,904 Forumite
    Premier - firstly a lot of your speech is irrelevant and makes it harder to pick out the pertinent points.
    Secondly it was TDS who advised me to go via the courts and I have nothing to lose and am ready for my "day in court" thanks to the help of most postings here. As someone said, there are a number of inherent failings in the deposit scheme system and unless people make a stand they will persist. I hear what you're saying but it is my decision to make and if you do not support it, then so be it. But if you cannot offer helpful points on the current situation, as opposed to what you wish the situation to be, then please can you leave this thread.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture