Difficulties in getting deposit back!!

N79

palasmy wrote: »

To answer N79, the form they sent me clearly says on the top that it is a Allocation questionnaire for small claims track, so I guess the case is moving in the right direction. About my claim, yes I'm trying to claim 3x the deposit, is that the reason for the extra fees? so will there be more such fees as the case progresses?

There is a fee for the allocation questionnaire. I'm also sorry to say that there will be a hearing fee to come as well (if it gets that far). All costs will be added to your claim if you win.

However, the GBP200 fee is for allocation to the fast or multi track. The small claims fee is GBP35 (or at least was in July 2009 which is the latest saved copy I have of the fees guidance and the HMCS is not working at the time I am typing this). I would suggest you contact the court (you can telephone the court office) and query the fee as they seem to be charging the wrong one (which is way I stated earlier that it seemed you were heading to the multi track). The only way I can think of for the higher fee to be payable would be if your claim was greater than GBP5000 and heading to the fast or multitrack.

Clutton, although my LL is in a Non-EU country, I guess the contract was drafted by the LA and they acted on behalf of the LL, and according to the famous 'DRAYTON' case (pointed out by tbs624), any person acting on behalf of the LL will be liable for the deposit. So would it not be clear from this that the LA will be held responsible for the penalties? or do you think I should still be cautious on thsi note?

I'm sorry to say that you need to reread the Drayton case, or at least the part of the judgement I quoted above. A LA will only be responsible if they were clearly in charge of protecting the deposit. This was the point that was made in the case. Since you don't know which of the LA and LL was responsible, this is why your claim is against both.

Just to brief you all on the case, in the acknowledgement form the LA had obviously stated that they intend to contest the claim and mentioned that I should have used the TDS for the dispute which doesn't make any sense as they have not protected the deposit in the first place?

Quite!

Can I assume that my chances of winning the case are more with this one strong point?

Not really as it does not go to the nature of the 3x claim. It is just irrelevant twaddle from the LA (it should give the judge a good laugh though).

Secondly the LA have for no reason claimed that the house was not left in good condition (which is absolutely ridiculous as I have enough evidence to prove that wrong) which is no way related to the actual case, isn't it? isn't the case all about the deposit being not protected and not about the dispute?

Remember that you claim is for the return of your deposit as well. Here the LA is trying to counterclaim for damage to the property. If they have no evidence, and you can show the state of the property at checkout then they will not get anywhere with this claim.

Thanks

Your welcome.

N79

clutton wrote: »

palasmy - taking anyone to court in UK is a gamble... there have been several conflicting judgements on this 3xdeposit application - but none of these cases have set a legal precedent as they are not heard in a high enough court....

as long as you understand there are 4 possible outcomes.. you could


lose
lose and have to pay some of the LA costs
win and get the money
win and dont get the money

and the letting agent who is defending your claim will have the benefit of legal advice and will no doubt have better knowledge than you.....

just keep this in perspective ....

True enough. I doubt that the OP will have an outright lose though and, provided the claim remains on the small claims track then there will almost certainly not be any costs to speak of as I can not see an arguement that this is vexatious litigation. I suppose the defendants' travel costs might be awarded in the case of an outright lose.

However, whatever happens to the 3x claim OP should still win the return of their deposit and hence their fees on top.

Enforcing it may be a different matter...........

N79

palasmy wrote: »

Hello people. I'm really desperate for some guidance here. I'm becoming a bit nervous about this whole thing now! Please help..

Courage! -

palasmy

N79, thanks for those lines, I'm starting to get worried a bit now and losing my courage slowly...particularly after knowing that going to court is only a gamble rather than a hope of getting justice! Further more for some one like me who has very little help in legal support (most likely I have to represent myself should a hearing rise!) and having a affordability limitation, the court route doesn't look promising which is such a shame. So my hopes of getting justice is fading way and I don't know what to do next, honestly.

All I wanted was only what I was entitled for (my deposit+court fees), I'm not keen on the 3x penalty I chose this route so that this would make the defendants come to me for a compromise so that I don't have to go any further with the court proceedings. But, clearly this hasn't happened and now it appears like I have to spend even more money for some thing that I can't really be hope ful about.

I do not have the luxury of time or money to do gambling, I'm thinking now whether or not should I go back to the LL and try to reach a amicable deal if possible. But frankly this is not what I wanted for what has been done to me.

How useful the small claims mediation service can be? Is it something that would help me? I really can't afford for the string of fees that the court will impose on me, particularly when you know that it is a gamble.

Appreciate your advice..

P

clutton_2

you have nothing to lose by going to mediation - except an hour of your time... some courts charge for mediation, some offer it for free....

it will make you look very reasonable in the courts eyes if you have initiated mediation.. even if you dont win... but NOTHING said in mediation can then be taken into the court room...

tbs624

Palasmy - court mediation can be held in person or via the 'phone and there would obviously have to be agreement from both parties for that route to be taken. There is evidence to suggest that who use mediation tend to come away with a lower settlement and you still have the problem that is the other party does not pay up you have to return to the court for enforcement.

My thoughts coincide with those of N79 - I view it as *unlikely* that the result would be an "outright lose" (if proceeding to court). It is however, clearly a decision that only s/he can take.

The alternative is that you post over at Consumer Action for others' views or perhaps consider using a "no win, no fee" scheme such as this one from Tessa Shepperson