We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlord TDS dispute
Comments
-
Could you explain why or how I would have "vested interest" do do this?I disagree completley. Your posts are completley unbalanced and heavily favour the landlord that is being complained about...
I do! Have a look at the OP's post about expecting to obtain penalised (or just they are greedy to get some compo! for themselves) rather than simple recovery of what they are owed as would be the case in any other debt matter.I dont think the O/P is looking for their day in court. They have listened to my, and other posters balanced advice outlining possible ways forward and the possible pitfalls to said actions, and have concluded that they want to make a N208 claim.
The OP may have listened to you because they have come here with the expectation of claiming the outragous sum of £10,000 over a disputed £600. You have only encouraged them to do so. Unfortunately I feel they have little chance of success and will simply be simply thowing their money away by trying.
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Do we actually know what the disputed £600 is for? Sorry if it is in one of the posts, if so I overlooked it.0
-
1. when the LL has already given you your deposit back...Howver (and I guess this is what I want clarification on) I cannot envisage a set of circumstances where the judge would rule that I am not entitled to my deposit back.
2. when the ll has already given you your deposit back less dilapidations and you are unsuccessful in challenging those deductions
1. When you lose the claimEqually I cannot see how the judge could rule that I have to pay LL's costs (see the example in the thread linked above).
2. When the judge deems you have acted vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably in bringing the matter to court or failed to act reasonably in attempting to settle the matter before it was brought before the court."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
1. When you lose the claim
2. When the judge deems you have acted vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably in bringing the matter to court or failed to act reasonably in attempting to settle the matter before it was brought before the court.
How could the O/P possibly be acting Vixatiously? By an act of LAW, the deposit should be protected and the prescribed information given. No 'ands' No 'buts' No 'negotiations' No 'getting around it' No 'leave it till the end and we will hope they dont notice'.
There is no requirement for negotiation on the O/Ps part. There is no requiremnt for the O/P to try and settle the matter. The claim being vexatious isnt even remotley a concern.
Again another grossly biased view of how the tenant is 'picking on' the poor LL.
Shame on you Premier0 -
If the landlord believes you are serious about taking him to court he will do one of two things:
a) protect the deposit and continue claiming £600 from your deposit as a correct deduction.
b) fully refund your total deposit.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
Oh dear, let me explain.How could the O/P possibly be acting Vixatiously? By an act of LAW, the deposit should be protected and the prescribed information given. No 'ands' No 'buts' No 'negotiations' No 'getting around it' No 'leave it till the end and we will hope they dont notice'.
There is no requirement for negotiation on the O/Ps part. There is no requiremnt for the O/P to try and settle the matter. The claim being vexatious isnt even remotley a concern.
Again another grossly biased view of how the tenant is 'picking on' the poor LL.
Shame on you Premier
If there is no case to answer, the judge will not even entertain the claim.
A vexatious claim is one where a claimant uses the power of the law to bring about such a claim with the intention harassing or subduing an adversary, rather than with the intention of settling a genuine dispute.
Once again I must ask you to kindly refarin from making personal, out of context, offensive posts about me personally in an attempt to belittle me or incite a negative response.
I have no issue with you disagreeing with the content of my posts, and you are welcome to post your view in opposition, but to make personal and offensive comments against this forums rules.
"Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps. ""Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Off home now.
Same time tomorrow Premier? Lets hope theres another TDS posting!0 -
Off home now.
Same time tomorrow Premier? Lets hope theres another TDS posting!
I'm sure there will be - see my post#3 of this thread!
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Premier does make some valid points, as with a potential 10k up for grabs it would be easy to get carried away making a claim for the 3x deposit penalty. A lot of posters, myself included would be keen to see a ruling against a non-compliant landlord but we aren't the ones shelling out the court fees!
As much as I'd love to see some mse version of Erin Brocovich, imho this is always going to be a gamble as the way the law is written the judges feel they have to disallow these claims if the landlord belatedly protects the deposit. A mistake in the legislation drafting imho but that is how things stand.
For the OP it is a case of weighing up whether the extra court fees for bringing the larger claim are worth the risk. If the potential 'win' justifies this or having their day in court, or setting some precedent, whatever the motivation that is fine!
Whilst the ethos of this site is 'consumer revenge' it helps to have a devils advocate [Premier] pointing out the pitfalls so we don't get too carried away!
To the OP if they understand the risk + intent on taking the case all the way, I'm with you and my suggestion to strengthen your case would be to research legal precedents where the law is interpreted by the intended meaning and not the strict definition of the wording... if you can find any policy notes, or earlier drafts of the legislation on the web these may help too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposivism)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards