Landlord TDS dispute

moneysavinmonkey

ooh, just to check as noone else has - you're not in scotland are you?
as TDS only applies to Wales + England at the moment.

kj616

Premier wrote: »

Oh dear, let me explain.

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.


LL has not registered my deposit so there is a case to answer.

My claim is not vexatious.

kj616

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)[/quote]

Thanks for this - good advice. I'm trying to gather as much information as I can. Unfortunately as far as I can see no clear precedent has been set. The legislation is certainly in need of clarification.

Planner

Have a look here;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1411989

The poster has just recieved a nice fat check from the LL, without even having to go to court!

kj616

Planner wrote: »

Have a look here;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1411989

The poster has just recieved a nice fat check from the LL, without even having to go to court!

Thanks for this - I've just sent a PM.

stevetodd

Planner wrote: »

Have a look here;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1411989

The poster has just recieved a nice fat check from the LL, without even having to go to court!

I must admit I only spent a few mins reading that link but what a pair of scumbags those 2 were! One a scumbag landlord overcharging on the cleaning and the other a scumbag tenant trying to get out of paying his electricity bill. They really deserve each other, I hope that I am lucky enough to avoid such excrement in future dealings.

Premier_2

stevetodd wrote: »

I must admit I only spent a few mins reading that link but what a pair of scumbags those 2 were! One a scumbag landlord overcharging on the cleaning and the other a scumbag tenant trying to get out of paying his electricity bill. They really deserve each other, I hope that I am lucky enough to avoid such excrement in future dealings.

Aurore first registered 12-Jan-2009
Planner first registered 09-Jan-2009

There are other similarities too, but nuff said I think.

Planner

Premier wrote: »

Aurore first registered 12-Jan-2009
Planner first registered 09-Jan-2009

There are other similarities too, but nuff said I think.

Come on Premier. No need to be a sore loser. Your going to need to grow a tougher skin now I am around :j

housesitter

tbs624 wrote: »

1.(a) the LL has failed to register your deposit as required by law, provided that the deposit was "received" but the LL after 6 April 07 - it's not necessarily the date on which the tenancy started.

My deposit was paid on 04/04/07,
I have a receipt from the LA dated 22/04/07 stating for deposit plus first month rent, the date of the start of my first tenancy.

I have signed two further new SLA contracts since that date.

So, should my LL/LA have protected my deposit either then, or by now, or not at all?

Premier_2

housesitter wrote: »

My deposit was paid on 04/04/07,
I have a receipt from the LA dated 22/04/07 stating for deposit plus first month rent, the date of the start of my first tenancy.

I have signed two further new SLA contracts since that date.

So, should my LL/LA have protected my deposit either then, or by now, or not at all?

There's no obligation on the LL to protect it as it is based on when the deposit was first paid. However the LL may elect to protect it - why not suggest it to him.?