AST contract start date mistake - help please

iglepiggle

tbs264 thanks - yup came across the case around the decision based on Recieved/Paid.

Hence - contract is my backup - since contract states deposit payment is required AND it will be included in TDS.

Therefore - certainly contract would be expected to cover all legal requirement. As such - it should be treated as paid back to me and received by them. There is a case that was won on this ground. If not - then I can argue contract is misleading/breach amounting to the same thing. (since deposit wasnt held in such a scheme in accordance with law as specified in contract).

Still it will be a lottery - what I would like to do is map all arguments/counters - so I am prepared. Once I have it all settled I will post up how I do -with all the details I have mustered.

iglepiggle

Also worth mentioning another case I found where the Judge was in favour of the tenant but no monies were paid.

In that case, although the Judge would have made payment. As the deposit had been fully repaid. He/She want able to apply the 3 x deposit payment. As the law states the Deposit MUST be repaid and .....3x penalty.
As there was no deposit outstanding - it cant be enforced

N79

Igglypiggly

In your case I would forget the TDS and just dispute the deposit in court. This is the way that we did deposit disputes for 100s of years before the arrival of the half baked TDS idea. You can use the small claims court, it is easy and informal and there is only a small charge to start the claim, which you get back if you win. The arrival of TDS does not remove the court route and indeed, even for a protected deposit using the dispute resolution is not mandatory.

It will take more effort to decide if the deposit should have been protected that it will be to simply sue for the return of the deposit.

iglepiggle

If a Landlord witholds a deposit unfairly - on the basis he can keep it unless the tenant goes through the effort of small claims court. Theres no reason for him to ever repay a deposit. The worst that can happen is he may have to pay it back. On the rule of thumb only a fraction of tenants would go through this. Landlord is quids in.

The Consultation of Secondary Legislation that I believe led on to the TDS scheme had some facts and figures illustrating the problem. It comments on the low uptake of people willing to take part in the pilot scheme it ran. In short things were unfairly weighted to the landlord and needed to be addressed. I believe is the 3x deposit was included - because if not, no LL/LA would ever take it up.

I am in favour of the TDS scheme - at least now if theres a dispute you can have it decided by an independent body (altho both parties must agree). But it at least means the landlord will not have access to the monies in dispute either. Which is much fairer. You can avoid court action.

Yes - it could all be clearer - but the ambiguity works both in favour and against both for Agent and Tenant. So it really doesnt favour either side.

The intent of the law is clear - how it was finally worked into the Housing Act - well that didnt seem to go so well.

For me - Im not personally motivated by money. If the law was 3x penalty payment but not paid to tenant. It would not change anything in my circumstance.