Getting my TDS deposit back

HGLTsuperstar

OK gang - here's today's installment. My recorded delivery letters, based on the template from the case redcar linked to yesterday, reached both LA and LL this morning. LA left voicemail saying it was nothing to do with them and I had to go through landlady. She remains as elusive as ever - which can surely only help my case. Remember all I have since I left property is a hand scribbled note from the LA saying they'd received the keys back, and that was only because I wouldn't hand them oveer until I got it.
Anyway phoned LA and said that would not enter into telephone conversations, as I had wrote to them they should respond in like (want everything in writing) but did remind them to re-read my letter very carefully before they say it's nothing to do with them and that both they and the LL had 6 days left before cc action. Was referrring to the point I had asked for full details of the deposit scheme and the date of registration - which is definitely their responsibility (of course I know they breached this but they don't know that I know yet).
Back tomorrow

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

by the way premier... that link says that Gary Webber was a practising barrister but is now deputy district judge (ie the kind that sits in county court)!! So it's possible he would decide a 3x deposit case - just though you might like to add this to your byline next time you post this same information! (although he didn't write the bit you quote, someone in the same chambers as him did)

Thanks for that extra info, moneysavinmonkey.

You are correct, Gary Webber didn't write that particular article but does maintain the website and calls himself the General Editor of it.

The item itself was written by Daniel Dovar, a barrister at 33 Bedford Row and co-author of Residential Possession Proceedings (7th Edition) published by Sweet & Maxwell together with Michael Walsh who is a pupil barrister at 33 Bedford Row and a visiting academic tutor at King's College London.

Daniel has been a barrister for 10 years practising from 33 Bedford Row Chambers in property law with an emphasis on landlord and tenant. He is a member of the Property Bar Association and as well as writing articles and lecturing he is also co-author of Residential Possession Proceedings (7th Edition)

http://www.propertylawuk.net/contributors.html#dd

I wonder if redcar still holds out hope how clear the law is on this and that these learned people are so wrong in their interpretation? :rotfl:

moneysavinmonkey

HGLTsuperstar wrote: »

LA left voicemail ....
.... phoned LA and said that would not enter into telephone conversations, as I had wrote to them they should respond in like (want everything in writing)

lol! LA sound like complete numpteys!!

well done in keeping chasing them but probably best to keep everything in writing anyway.

Premier_2

HGLTsuperstar wrote: »

OK gang - here's today's installment. My recorded delivery letters, based on the template from the case redcar linked to yesterday, reached both LA and LL this morning. LA left voicemail saying it was nothing to do with them and I had to go through landlady. She remains as elusive as ever - which can surely only help my case. Remember all I have since I left property is a hand scribbled note from the LA saying they'd received the keys back, and that was only because I wouldn't hand them oveer until I got it.
Anyway phoned LA and said that would not enter into telephone conversations, as I had wrote to them they should respond in like (want everything in writing) but did remind them to re-read my letter very carefully before they say it's nothing to do with them and that both they and the LL had 6 days left before cc action. Was referrring to the point I had asked for full details of the deposit scheme and the date of registration - which is definitely their responsibility (of course I know they breached this but they don't know that I know yet).
Back tomorrow

Wow! Superquick postal service where you live - looks like you've had your response already
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1076815

I'm not sure why you agreed to rent the property in the first place if it was damp - that's possiblyy why it remained unlet for 7 months.

If you caused extra problems through condensation by the way you used the property and failed to ventilate it adequately, then the LL will deduct the cost of those delapidations.

She can't bill you for a new damp coarse because (a) it's two different issues and (b) you wouldn't have been the cause of any damage to the existing one.

If the condensation you caused means the ceiling tiles are damaged, perhaps by the build up of mould, then she will bill you for this. Whether she replaces them with similar tiles or does something different involving a lesser fire hazard is irrelevant. If it were not for you causing the condensation, the tiles would not have been damaged and so probably wouldn't have needed replacing. You would need to come to some agreement if you want to argue the case of betterment vs fair wear & tear.

HGLTsuperstar

Premier - I didn't say it was unlet for 7 months - I rented for 7 months.
Agreed to rent it because I needed somewhere and it fitted the bill.
As for my response already - no as I said this is a garbled message from the LA - LL still not speaking.
BTW I didn't mention the damp at any time as I wasn't maing an issue of it - it is/will be her that raises it.
And no the ceiling tiles aren't damaged - they're just dodgy polystyrene - a separate issue.
And hang on, I didn't say I did cause condensation - and as has been noted rising damp is a structural fault and if she had adequate heating there in the first place things might have been better.
But anyway, nothing official yet so jumping the gun

redcar_2

Premier wrote: »

I wonder if redcar still holds out hope how clear the law is on this and that these learned people are so wrong in their interpretation? :rotfl:

Yes I do. I think the 14 days is critical and if the deposit is not lodged within that time the landlord is going to be liable for the 3x penalty.

Premier_2

redcar wrote: »

Yes I do. I think the 14 days is critical and if the deposit is not lodged within that time the landlord is going to be liable for the 3x penalty.

You should jopin forces with Prancer - looks like the judge there didn't agree with your interpretation either
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

Keep telling yourself black is white :rotfl:

redcar_2

Yes but as prancer also stated he knows of two other cases which went the other way on the same point.

I think, as I have always said, its open to interpretation and so far it seems score in court is 2-1 to my way of thinking. However I recognise that neither this decision nor the other two are binding which you don't seem to.

Premier_2

HGLTsuperstar wrote: »

Premier - I didn't say it was unlet for 7 months - I rented for 7 months.

Sorry my mistake, you said it was unlet for months - you didn't actually specify how many:o

HGLTsuperstar wrote:

Agreed to rent it because I needed somewhere and it fitted the bill.

A damp basement flat fitted the bill?
Why didn't you make sure the fact it was damp was noted when you started the TA?

HGLTsuperstar wrote:

...And no the ceiling tiles aren't damaged - they're just dodgy polystyrene - a separate issue.

If they are not damaged, why do you think you'll be charged for their replacement?

HGLTsuperstar wrote:

And hang on, I didn't say I did cause condensation - and as has been noted rising damp is a structural fault and if she had adequate heating there in the first place things might have been better.
But anyway, nothing official yet so jumping the gun

Heating won't solve a rising damp issue. As you say, rising damp is a structuaral issue. But heating would improve a condensation problem...hence why it sounds like condensation. But ventilation is the best cure for condensation, not heating.
If rising damp has reached the ceiling, that's one heck of a problem!

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

So you don't consider £500-£600 per hour plus VAT @ 17.5% a huge amount?

Jeez - £150 per hour is a huge amount - even £70 per hour (your figure of £350 divided by 5 hours) is a lot more than most of us earn!
When you consider small claims are usually for amounts less than £5k, and can be for amounts of £25 or less - I've seen some for £5 and less relating to bounced cheques - you see even your £70 per hour is huge (especially when it cannot be claimed back in costs) - 4 minutes of your time would cost more than the amount claimed!!!

Now if only people could employ a barrister at £46 per day as you originally suggested - the courts would be deluged! :rotfl:

Try to keep up - although I increasingly suspect you of just trolling, as your posts (generally, not just in reply to me) are confrontational, and your selective quoting mendacious.

Shall we remind ourselves of the conversation so far?

I said:

Barristers turn up in small claims from time to time, but as you say, not often. It's not usually cost-effective.

"huge fees" is a bit of an exaggeration, though. OH did some small claims cases as a pupil, for £150 a go, as I recall.

So it is pretty damn obvious that I am referring to the costs for small claims cases. And they aren't "huge fees".

I charge £350 for an AIT case, which is, on average, about 8 hours - prep, plus court time, plus travel and waiting. So about £45 an hour, rather than £70. But, even if it were £70 an hour, on average, I couldn't have been clearer when I said that was for Asylum and Immigration work, which is completely different from small claims.

In relation to the £46 for a mention, I said:

The worst paid I ever have been was in a Crown Court mention - standard £46 fee, no travel costs, and I was there from 9.30am to 6pm, plus 3 hours' travelling time. That sucked.

A standard fee in immigration law for a barrister of my sort of call is £350 for a straight-forward case, incl. prep, etc.

So I mentioned BOTH the mention fee, and in the very same post, immigration fees. So please don't try to make out I didn't. Nor did I say that the mention fee was typical, I gave it as the worst ever fee I'd earned. Not typical.

And nowhere did I say that £500 an hour plus VAT wasn't a huge fee. But it has absolutely nothing to do with small claims.

Your ignorance of the whole matter can be clearly seen from your use of the phrase "firm" in relation to barristers' chambers anyway.