Getting my TDS deposit back

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

... particularly as I could be entitled to 3x the deposit back if it wasn't protected!!

Only if the LL doesn't return the deposit and the matter actually makes it to court

moneysavinmonkey

I did say could Premier!!

tbs624

Premier wrote: »

Absolutely, the law is very clear on this. The LL is required to give that information within 14 days. However, we are all human and we all make mistakes.........

Okay, so we generally have a minimum AST agreement in place for 6 months (and many of the tenancies involved seem to be for periods in excess of this.) I reckon that’s a pretty long time to think about complying with the law by dealing properly with the deposit.

A “mistake” to my mind is maybe missing the 14 days by one or two days - still wrong in law, but let’s be generous.

With many of these LLs it is highly likely that their non-compliance has nothing to do with making a mistake or “forgetting”, but is a wilful refusal to accept that LL &T laws and regs apply to them personally , rather than just to those decent LLs who have always tried to be fair over deposit issues and who now also fully comply with the current law.

Let’s note the key thing here - a LL operates as a *business* - anyone dealing with property rentals simply has to keep on top of the legalities.
If you run a driving school, should it be the responsibility of the learner drivers to check that you have MOTd the cars? If you run a restaurant, should it be the responsibility of the diners to check that your fridges are at the right temperature & that your staff have food hygiene certs? If you are a solicitor is it the responsibility of the client to check that you keep your practising certificate up to date?

No, of course it isn’t, so as I said previously - why should it be the responsibility of the tenant to chase up whether you as a LL have registered a deposit & got a certificate/obtained & provided the prescribed info?

The main purpose of the Tenancy Deposit legislation was to address the problems that tenants faced in retrieving their deposits in a timely fashion and without unfair deductions. Let’s also bear in mind that most tenants *need* the prompt return of that deposit to enable them to fund their next home.

In essence many tenants still have all of these anxieties and are, it seems, expected to “police” their LL’s compliance with the law, which if pursued by the tenant during the tenancy leaves them at risk of an untimely & retaliatory eviction at the next available opportunity.

In the examples that you give as your way of looking at it the other way round: the bus /train passenger travelling without a valid ticket will indeed face paying the full cost of the fare plus an on the spot fine in the form of a penalty. The ticket inspector asks, the passengers pays. That’s reasonable.

The 3x deposit amount plus the immediate return of the deposit itself could possibly also be used as a type of on the spot fine: it should simply be payable to the tenant on request in those cases where a LL has failed to comply with the law. That too is reasonable IMO.

If neither the passenger nor the LL cough up on request then my view is the bus/train company or tenant really ought to be able to proceed straight to court.

However, in this thread my understanding is that HGLT has:

(1) discussed the return of his/her deposit with the LA
(2) tried to contact the LL and
(3) now written a rec delivery letter to the LL

and this, combined with the length of the tenancy (7 months), means that the LL/LA has, by most peoples standards, been given a very “reasonable” opportunity to resolve the issue: hopefully there will be a pretty prompt result for HGLT, but if not, one more LBA and away with the forms......

MY view is that tenants should write, as should decent LLs, to the Housing Minister, their local MP, their local Council's Private Sector Rentals Team,Shelter's campaign section et al and highlight the fact that it is wrong that the deposit pressure still seems to be on the tenant.

LLs are not able to dump their repairing responsibilities, gas safety reqmts etc onto tenants & this should be no different.

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

Be careful. County Court Judges seem to be very keen on claimants acting reasonably before court action - I think they are getting a bit fed up with people starting court action as their first approach to resolving a dispute rather than their last.

Whatever your right in law, I've known some cases to be dismissed on the basis of unreasonable behaviour by the claimant, and others where the claimant wins (because that is their lawful position) but the judge would not award costs as again it was based on the unreasonable actions of the claimant.

It's not even 14 days (10 working days) since you ended your Tenancy Agreement yet.

A judge can't chuck a case out on the basis of no pre-action protocol in the County Court.

It can have an implication for costs (not a big deal in the CC, though, on the small claims track).

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

A judge can't chuck a case out on the basis of no pre-action protocol in the County Court.

It can have an implication for costs (not a big deal in the CC, though, on the small claims track).

They find against the claimant on the basis the claimant acted wholey unreasonably in bring about the claim in the first place.

I've had a case recently which was over an initial claim of £25. If it had reached court, costs & expenses would have run into several hundred pounds. Fortunately the defendant knew he would lose and settled through mediation for the initial claim plus a further £25 court filing fee (online)

tbs624

Premier wrote: »

They find against the claimant on the basis the claimant acted wholey unreasonably in bring about the claim in the first place. ..

....but that doesn't sound as if it is the case here. Tenants shouldn't be afraid to take an errant LL to court when necessary , provided they have done their homework, and that's the value of having a "paper trail" always, guys n gals........

IIRC Neverdespairgirl is a barrister, ergo I guess she's pretty familiar with the way judges work

Premier_2

tbs624 wrote: »

....Tenants shouldn't be afraid to take an errant LL to court when necessary ,...

Yes, when necessary. As a last resort, not the first port of call. That was the point I was making to the OP in my earlier post.

tbs624 wrote:

IIRC Neverdespairgirl is a barrister, ergo I guess she's pretty familiar with the way judges work

I'll let Neverdispairgirl respond to that herself if she wishes. All I'll say is that I do accept she has a good general understanding of many aspects of the law and I value many of her posts.

Btw, you don't often see a barrister in a small claims court (although they do sometimes appear) - the problem is their huge fees are not recoverable from the losing party, so the employing party has to pay them whatever the outcome of the case.

tbs624

Hi Premier - happy as always for you to quote my posts in responses but do please indicate when you highlight/embolden anything within that quote that you have done so.

I am getting used to your circular arguments now but you can see that my post no 27 responds to your post no 26, which was making a different point.

Am also aware of who operates within which court: barristers don't have to appear in any particular court for them to understand, by dint of their legal training, how a judge generally views matters of reasonableness. Bit of a key legal principle, that one......and as I say, tenants ( or indeed LLs /any other litigant if they are the wronged party) should not be unduly worried about using the courts for fear of being viewed as unreasonable.

HGLTsuperstar

Just to break up the little squabble that seems to have broken out between you two (please don't fight over me!) - no word as yet so are giving it until the end of today then ringing around the different TDS schemes and will update on Monday.
Take care all,
Holly x

moneysavinmonkey

thanks for the update. Will 'tune in' on monday to see how your getting on!