Landlord TDS dispute

Planner

Premier wrote: »

I don't agree fully.

It can simply be done between the two parties involved.

How does this relate to your previous comment suggesting that the O/P should involve a 3rd party in the form of court mediation?

Is it in fact more to the truth that you will suggest any action BUT a court claim based on TDS non-compliance, because of your own, glaringly obvious, vested interest?

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

How does this relate to your previous comment suggesting that the O/P should involve a 3rd party in the form of court mediation?

Is it in fact more to the truth that you will suggest any action BUT a court claim based on TDS non-compliance, because of your own, glaringly obvious, vested interest?

See previous post which I have expanded to clarify why the use of a mediation service may help.

What on earth "vested interest" could I have in this matter?
I'm simply posting my opinions on the best course of action the OP should take to come to a rapid and acceptable resolution to the dispute he is involved with.

I accept your opinion may differ from mine, but there really is no need to make personal attacks against me. Please keep your comments courteous and to the matter in hand.

Planner

Premier wrote: »

What on earth "vested interest" could I have in this matter?

I wonder! :rotfl:

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

I wonder! :rotfl:

No really I haven't a clue what you are on about. Please explain

Or were you just posting in an attempt to incite a negative response from me?

kj616

Planner wrote: »

Personally I think this is an unreasonable suggestion. If the deposit had been protected in accordance with the law, the O/P would now be using the particular TDS arbitration service and not paying to use the court arbitration service.


These are my thoughts exactly. I feel strongly that all of the LL claims are unreasonable and that I should receive the deposit backl in full. I have returned the flat in cleaner state than it was in when our tenancy began.

However, as Planner seems to be suggesting, this argument is somewhat academic. He has not protected my deposit, therefore he has deprived me of my right to independent arbitration. Surely the legislation exists specifically to prevent this exact situation arising?

It seems I have no other option than to issue proceedings.

Whilst my primary concern is the return of the money I am owed, it would be disingenuous of me to claim (given the LL's aggressive attitude) that I have no interest in the £10k which I feel the legislation entitles me too.

I'm therefore looking for any practical tips on how to prepare as strong a case as possible to avoid letting LL escape the 3x penalty. My research up to now has suggested that LL can register my deposit retrospectively after the tenancy has ended and as mentioned above, he can do this even after proceedings have been issued. This seems entirely unfair and nonsensical. Is there anything I can do to make it more difficult for LL to do this, thus strengthening my case?

Thanks again!

Planner

Premier wrote: »

Planner wrote: »

Premier wrote: »

What on earth "vested interest" could I have in this matter?

No really I haven't a clue what you are on about. Please explain

Well,

Everytime (and I do mean everytime) that someone (a tenant) has a tds non-compliance question you either;

1) tell them that it is compltley their fault and they should be greatful that the landlord doesnt sue them for some something; or

2) you tell them that they have no right to make a TDS claim (in fact how dare they even think it) and they should either accept that their law breaking landlord has pocketed £800 of their unprotected deposit for the bath to be cleaned, or to send a grovelling letter to their LL, apologising for the inconvenience and intrusion of not pointing it out earlier to them that they should have protected the deposit, and 'please sir, can I have some more' (to use a famous quote) of it back.

To me this suggests one of two things;

a) you are deliberatley misleading people and want them to loose out financially; or

b) you are in fact a landlord who is doing all in their power to discredit the TDS system and negate tenants rights.

If you have a third reason, I would be happy to hear it.

Planner

kj616 wrote: »

Planner wrote: »

Personally I think this is an unreasonable suggestion. If the deposit had been protected in accordance with the law, the O/P would now be using the particular TDS arbitration service and not paying to use the court arbitration service.


These are my thoughts exactly. I feel strongly that all of the LL claims are unreasonable and that I should receive the deposit backl in full. I have returned the flat in cleaner state than it was in when our tenancy began. We did not sign an entry checklist and he has no way of proving that his claims as to the condition of the flat prior to our moving in are true (not least because they are not).

However, as Planner seems to be suggesting, this argument is somewhat academic. He has not protected my deposit, therefore he has deprived me of my right to independent arbitration. Surely the legislation exists specifically to prevent this exact situation arising?

It seems I have no other option than to issue proceedings.

Whilst my primary concern is the return of the money I am owed, it would be disingenuous of me to claim (given the LL's aggressive attitude) that I have no interest in the £10k which I feel the legislation entitles me too.

I'm therefore looking for any practical tips on how to prepare as strong a case as possible to avoid letting LL escape the 3x penalty. My research up to now has suggested that LL can register my deposit retrospectively after the tenancy has ended and as mentioned above, he can do this even after proceedings have been issued. This seems entirely unfair and nonsensical. Is there anything I can do to make it more difficult for LL to do this, thus strengthening my case?

Thanks again!

No, I dont believe there is anything that you can do to stop the LL retrospectivley protecting your deposit.

If you are inclined to do so, you should submit the claim and 'hope' that your LL comes up with a variety of excuses (possibly Premier could provide them?) as to why he shouldnt protect the deposit, or you have one of those judges (there are some case law examples out there) who interprets the law differently and more to your way of thinking i.e. a retrospectivley protected deposit isnt compliant. Obviously no one can give you a guarantee of this, your one of the pioneers! in TDS non-compliance claims.

kj616

Premier wrote: »

I don't agree that this is an unreasonable suggestion at all.

I agree the deposit should have been protected in the first instance, but it wasn't. There's nothing that can be done about that now.

What remedy is the OP seeking? As I understand it, the position now is that the OP wants his deposit returned. There is no reason to pay a court anything to achieve this. It can simply be done between the two parties involved. A mediation service may well help given the stance that has already been portrayed by the OP (including what the OP claims the stance of the LL is) in this thread.

I am seeking the return of my deposit in full. I would also like LL to be penalised by the courts in line with the provisions of the housing act. My correspondence with LL up to now has left me in no doubt that there is almost no chance he will agree to return the deposit in full.

Planner

kj616 wrote: »

I am seeking the return of my deposit in full. I would also like LL to be penalised by the courts in line with the provisions of the housing act. My correspondence with LL up to now has left me in no doubt that there is almost no chance he will agree to return the deposit in full.

Good for you. Your an adult, and have listened to both sides of the argument that has been persented to you and are aware of the benifits and risks of each approach.

If you want help filling in the N208 forms etc, let us know. There is some suggested wording available etc.

tbs624

Planner wrote: »

Im sure it does, A quick glance through the contents section brought the N1 issue to light though, not a glaring mistake at the time of publication, as at the time which form to use was still up for discussion, but things have obviously moved on since publication of that document so use with caution and ignore the N1 advice section.

In terms of 'Tessa Sheppersons' comments, again times have moved on a little. You should be careful tbs624 about posting such dreadfully outdated links.

Anyone following the links can clearly see the dates and follow further links from Tessa's blogs. Remember that what any one of us, including you, post on here, cannot be seen as "advice" - merely suggestions or opinion and, as with any forum, readers should seek their own clarification.

If the OP were to use N208 rather than N1 but does not win - and unfortunately there is no guarantee that s/he would do, as things stand - then s/he would then need to start again with an N1 to try to recover the deposit itself. Potential to be shelling out two lots of court fees..................yes, if s/he was successful with the N1 then that fee would be recoverable, but the N208 fee would not be under that same action AFAIAA.