Getting my TDS deposit back

Premier_2

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!

Get your claim in with the TDS now - you only have 20 working days in which to lodge a dispute. (the LL then has a further 10 working days in which to respond)

Then it goes to an ICE (independant case examiner) or court if you elect. Bear in mind that it'll probably at least 3 months before you get to any court hearing and will cost you money. Probably best to acceot to abide by the adjudication of the ICE if you want a quicker resolution.

As you don't appear to have been provided with the necessary documentation as described by the TDS, you could try and claim for a refund of the deposit on that basis rather than argue about the rights or wrongs of the actual amounts deducted. That seems to be a valid reason for the ICE to consider a full refund.

Premier_2

redcar wrote: »

but not within the 14 days required.

It's already protected!

redcar_2

Premier wrote: »

Get your claim in with the TDS now - you only have 20 working days in which to lodge a dispute. (the LL then has a further 10 working days in which to respond).

Glad to see you keen on keeping to time scales now :rolleyes:

Without wishing to kick off another 'premier discussion' - seriously OP getting the dispute registered now is the way to go.

Premier_2

redcar wrote: »

Glad to see you keen on keeping to time scales now :rolleyes: ...

Obviously a case of mistaken identity!
Else what on earth are you on about?

redcar_2

Premier wrote: »

Obviously a case of mistaken identity!
Else what on earth are you on about?

Your previous posts have given me the impression that you think that in the case of protecting the deposit by the landlord the 14 day limit doesn't matter as long as it gets done eventually. However you are highlighting the need for swiftness in getting disputes lodged within necessary timescales. Just made me smile at your inconsistency - thats all!

Head down

Premier_2

Here's the law as written, regarding deposits:

213 Requirements relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.
(2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received.
(4) For the purposes of this section “the initial requirements” of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.
(5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,
as may be prescribed.
(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.
(7) No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money.
(8) In subsection (7) “deposit” means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—
(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b) the discharge of any liability of his,
arising under or in connection with the tenancy.
(9) The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary.
(10) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—
(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or
(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.
(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.
(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19


or in plain English:

If a tenant is concerned that his deposit is not protected by a scheme and/or he has not been provided with the prescribed information and/or the scheme administrator does not confirm that their deposit is protected then he can commence proceedings against the landlord under HA 2004, s 214. Although it appears that if, by the time of the hearing, the landlord has complied with the requirement there is no sanction. If the court finds that the landlord is in breach then it must order up to three times the amount of the deposit to be paid to the tenant within 14 days (s 214(4)) as well as ordering the deposit to be paid either into the custodial scheme or to the tenant (s 213(3)).

http://www.propertylawuk.net/residentialdeposits.html

The requirement to lodge a dispute within 20 days is not law, but a term of the scheme itself - that's why I advised the OP of it.

redcar_2

I'll not bother with re-quoting the whole lot but if the requirement covers both lodging and timescale than if that timescale has gone past it can't be complied with even if then lodged.

I think the law as you have quoted is relatively clear on this, although as always is open to interpretation as your quote demonstrates.

I don't think its worth hijacking the OPs thread to have this debate as you obviously remain convinced of your view and I guess are unlikely to change it.

Premier_2

It's not just my interpretation, but that of the barrister with 22 years experince in property law.

His contact details are on his website if you think it's so clear that he is wrong.

HGLTsuperstar

So can I butt in here please - TDS said the law was broken by not registering my deposit and giving me the details within 14 days - so that is a fact whether it was registered eventually or not and I have not had any checking out documentation etc. As I said, I'm just being ignored left right and centre on the hope I'll "forget" to get my money back!

redcar_2

Premier wrote: »

It's not just my interpretation, but that of the barrister with 22 years experince in property law.

His contact details are on his website if you think it's so clear that he is wrong.

Agreed the law is open to interpretation - as your quote demontrates. I don't think its 'so clear' he is wrong but I do think he is wrong and you are wrong on this. You will note that he is also hedging his opinion with phrases such as 'it appears'.

If you only needed the opinion of one barrister for it to be so then you wouldn't need the whole judicial process where often, (sit down for this as its going to be a shock to your black and white world) two barristers put opposing arguments (sub text - if they disagree with each other then unlikely that every barrister is always right).

Anyway my point originally was that you are suggesting this time limit does not matter but are urging (correctly) the OP to act within other time limits.

What I suggested to the OP is to use this as leverage to resolve the dispute rather than go to court. It doesn't really matter what we think but what the LL concludes or if it gets to that stage the judge.