TDS dispute question ask..

clutton_2

""I doubt very much a judge would give possession on discretionary grounds either.""

how little you know.... i and many other landlords have got possession on discretionary grounds... if you have a good enough case you get possession


there are several court cases brought my landlords for recovery of deposits in which judges have not even asked why they case is before them....


the 2004 Act is unequivocal - EITHER party can refuse arbitration and go before the court...

its a legal right.. why would it be questioned ?

clutton_2

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I think you are anticipating problems where there aren't any yet. Your landlord is going to have a very difficult time proving any damage to the property was caused during your tenancy with no check-in or check-out inventories.

Instead of thinking about circumventing the deposit-protection process I think you should sit tight and wait. I suspect your landlord's delay has been caused by their realisation about the lack of inventories.

i have just tried to thank B&T but appear to be in his post !!!! the "thankyou" glitch in the software is back methinks...

tbs624

lumscx wrote: »

The deduction is certainly unjustified. There is no signed check-in and check-out inventory however I do keep my own photographic evidence to cover my back.

The point is that from what the people experience here TDS doesn't not actually provide a speedily resolution and rather than waiting for months after months.
it may just better off to use small claim in one go.

.. I'd agree but you *do* need to send the LL "a letter before action" (marked as such at the top of the page) before heading to court, and be able to clearly show that you have tried to reach agreement.

Pepzofio

Pepzofio wrote: »

If you think about it, paying your rent on time each month is a term of the tenancy agreement, but being a couple of weeks late on a rent payment would not in and of itself be mandatory grounds for possession. (I doubt very much a judge would give possession on discretionary grounds either.)

clutton wrote: »

""I doubt very much a judge would give possession on discretionary grounds either.""

how little you know.... i and many other landlords have got possession on discretionary grounds... if you have a good enough case you get possession

Alright Clutton, get off your high horse! If you actually read what I wrote in context, I was talking about paying your rent a couple of weeks late on one occasion being a technical breach of your TA but neither mandatory nor likely discretionary grounds for getting a Possession Order.

I am perfectly aware that it is possible to get a Possession Order on discretionary grounds - there wouldn't be much point in having such grounds otherwise, would there?

there are several court cases brought my landlords for recovery of deposits in which judges have not even asked why they case is before them....

the 2004 Act is unequivocal - EITHER party can refuse arbitration and go before the court...

its a legal right.. why would it be questioned ?

Fair enough, my bad - I just seemed to remember one of the schemes offering a choice of going through them or going to court (in fact I'm pretty sure it was in one of your posts stating that you always chose court) whereas the scheme that my LL registered with did not appear to offer this choice.

But I stand by my later comment that whoever brought it to court would have to show that they have attempted to solve it without resorting to court action.

clutton_2

the option to go to court is part of the 2004 Housing Act.. which rules were enshrined in all 3 tenancy deposit schemes

i would take it to court if i could not get an agreement with a tenant - up to now i have been able to negotiate a settlement with the tenant - with two exceptions (one i have written off, the other i am working on)

your original wording was a bit ambiguous.. we are in agreement here as a tenant needs to be persistently late paying the rent over a long period, and being in arrears, in order for a discretionary S8 to have any chance of success ...

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

the 2004 Act is unequivocal - EITHER party can refuse arbitration and go before the court...

its a legal right.. why would it be questioned ?

clutton wrote: »

the option to go to court is part of the 2004 Housing Act.. which rules were enshrined in all 3 tenancy deposit schemes

i would take it to court if i could not get an agreement with a tenant - up to now i have been able to negotiate a settlement with the tenant - with two exceptions (one i have written off, the other i am working on)
..

My bolding. Guidance please on where you can find this part in the HA?( certainly not within Sections 212-215)

The Court "option" to which you refer is mentioned in the HA, but with reference to a T pursuing a claim for the LLs non-compliance with the the tenancy deposit regs rather than to dealing with a deductions dispute.


see s214:

(1)Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—

(a)that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or

(b)that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

AFIAA, the HA is silent on the specific court/adjudication choice for either party to pursue a dispute over deductions: this is covered within the schemes' rules themselves and the fact that you have a general right to go to court to resolve a dispute