Landlord TDS dispute

Planner

TPS01403 wrote: »

Well to be honest I have had to spend ages in trying to get this matter sorted out, well over 20hrs solid, and as my time is extremely valuable (my time is charged at £195ph) I feel that I should be recompensed for this.

Less of the attitude!

Unfortunatley its part and parcel of life that we have to spend time sorting out other peoples mistakes. We would all be rich men and women if we could charge every time the electiricty company sent an incorrect bill through, BT cut your phone line off for an imaginary debt or the pizza shop delivery the wrong order to you.

In terms of the legislation, there is no enforcable time period given within the act as to the time period in which the deposit has to be protected, thats why I believe you arent destined to win this one.

tbs624

TPS01403 wrote: »

Hey less of the attitude tbs624! I was only asking for clarification!

Clarification was what you got, plus a helpful link

TPS01403 wrote: »

The law is an !!!! The legislation seems clear enough to me. If they haven't registered it until well over a month after the end of the tenancy, they should have to pay up. No wonder most people have little or no confidence in any part of the criminal or civil justice system in this country!

You are perhaps missing the point - many would agree with you. If a a LL can simply register the deposit at any time then why should the legislation mention a 14 day limit at all?

It has not been definitively established by the courts that a tenancy deposit should be registered on renewal of an AST, and the fact remains that yours *was* registered, albeit late, you were able to use the adjudication system, and you got the deposit back in its entirety. You are of course free to pursue the matter further but the way in which the legislation was drafted has meant that the courts' interpretation is not necessarily in line with your thinking so you are likely to waste your time and end up out of pocket.

If you do decide to go ahead post back and let us know how you get on.

TPS01403

Thanks very much for your reply. No point wasting my hard earned funds on court fee's if it's not gonna go anywhere.

Still smarts a bit though! Grrgh!! Evil landlords/letting agents!!!

Fingers crossed that karma comes through for me even if the law can't.

Perhaps a small asteroid may hit the letting agents office, or the landlord may suffer from some unexplained incurable pus fille rash on his testicles!

Here's hoping!

tbs624

TPS01403 wrote: »

Hey less of the attitude tbs624!

Then to N79

TPS01403 wrote: »

..Less of the attitude!

:iloveyou::rotfl:

housesitter

tbs624 wrote: »

I would say that your LL has in effect received your deposit on the 22 April so should have scheme-registered it.

Which is how I understood it. Despite them having a record of it going into their account on the earlier date, by issuing the receipt they are recognising the later date.

Still grinds me that after breaking the law they are able to get away with retro-actively registering deposits, but the law is an !!!. What can you do.

I *may* be leaving soon, at which point I will be going down the route of mentioning it. If they don't play ball, to be honest I'd rather with hold the rent and let them use the deposit. Good luck to them after that.
But I'll play the legal game till it doesn't work.

AWT19

I just thought I would add to this thread some coments.

I'm in a similar situation to others myself, and have now read hundreds of posts from many different people on the whole TDS issue, so feel I am reasonably well placed to comment.

I too thought at the beginning "3x deposit thats awesome. Easy money!"

And its a simple mistake to make. Unfortunately the law has been written such that a LL can simply place the money in a TDS any time before court OR return the deposit in full, and they are seen to have complied with the scheme. Which I guess is fair enough. Although some extremists might argue that the LL has broken the law and should be punished, I feel the T has seen no difference between being in the scheme or not, so why should he care?

I decided to wait to get at least a proportion of my deposit back before taking it further. I figured that a LL is less likely to protect the small unreturned portion of the deposit than the whole outstanding amount if pushed.

Fortunately (I guess!) the LL decided to make some deductions. And I didnt get my full deposit back. As I have said, although the LL MUST deposit and notify the tenent, it has been ruled that the full return of the depsosit is also sufficient to have compled with the scheme.

So now I'm in the process of taking him to court for the remaining piece of my deposit, which should in theory lead a judge to say that the money wasnt protected, therefore order the LL to pay back the full deposit, and of course he MUST award the 3x deposit.

So what I'm saying is that tenants who have unprotected deposits, just wait, say nothing until you get back the portion of the deposit the LL is happy to give, and then go for it.

I'll let you know how I get on....

kj616

TPS - haven't checked this thread for a while but thought I could add some comments.

I agree with Planner in that there is very little chance of you winning your case based on the facts provided. However the uncertainty of the law could work to your advantage as the defendant also cannot rely on the outcome.

If your LL/agent has acted dishonestly and you genuinely feel that you are entitled to some form of compensation the write a letter before action to the LL/agent asking them to pay 3x the value of the deposit within 7 days or you will proceed to court. If (or rather when) they refuse, send a letter without prejudice, save as to costs and suggest a sum which you would be happy to walk away with in full and final settlement of your claim. You are not obliged to go to court (and I wouldn't recomend that you do) if they refuse to pay so you don't stand to lose anything other than a bit more of your time.

Ultimatley your LL/Agent has breached his statutory obligations. Remind him it is a strict liabilitly offence.