Dispute over getting my deposit back-LL didnt use Tenants Deposit Scheme (TDS)?

summersj

i moved out yesterday from a property i was renting (in the UK) for 11months. My landlady doesnt want to give me all my deposit back and i disagree with her on the reason. I called her just now asking which TDS she went to (so i can put a dispute in) and she told me she didnt actually go to one and simply put my deposit into her personal bank account. What shall i do? I understand she has broken the law by doing this but can i appeal against her now??

I didnt even know about this TDS thing until now, I paid the estate agents my deposit and thought all would of then be done correctly through them.

G_M

Tell her you will go to the small claims court and by not placing the deposit in a scheme she'll have to give you not just the deposit but 3 times! (Actually it's a bit more complex but that will do as a start!)

Full details here.

(Why do tenants not ensure their LLs protect their deposits until they move out..... sigh.)

dkmax_2

G_M wrote: »

Tell her you will go to the small claims court and by not placing the deposit in a scheme she'll have to give you not just the deposit but 3 times!

I'm afraid that is no longer the situation after the recent Court of Appeal ruling. The tenant deposit legislation is effectively toothless unless the Supreme Court or Parliament addresses the situation.

You have to explicitly ask your landlord to protect your deposit, e.g. in the form of a letter-before-action. If they fail to do this you can take them to court but if they protect the deposit at any time prior to the hearing, the case against them is dead. You are likely to have to pay any legal costs incurred and you certainly will if you press the case.

The only situation in which the x3 will be awarded is when they fail to protect the deposit before the day of the hearing. A sensible landlord would not fail to protect the deposit at this point unless the money was gone, in which case you can whistle for the the x3 penalty too and your legal costs.

I would recommend writing to your MP and ask them what they propose to do to fix the Housing Act in the light of the recent TIENSIA v VISION ENTERPRISES LTD decision at the Court of Appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/15/landlords-free-to-ignore-deposit-protection-deadlines

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1224.html

clutton_2

did you sign an 11 months agreement or a 12 months agreement ?

G_M

dkmax wrote: »

I'm afraid that is no longer the situation after the recent Court of Appeal ruling. The tenant deposit legislation is effectively toothless unless the Supreme Court or Parliament addresses the situation.

You have to explicitly ask your landlord to protect your deposit, e.g. in the form of a letter-before-action. If they fail to do this you can take them to court but if they protect the deposit at any time prior to the hearing, the case against them is dead. You are likely to have to pay any legal costs incurred and you certainly will if you press the case.

The only situation in which the x3 will be awarded is when they fail to protect the deposit before the day of the hearing. A sensible landlord would not fail to protect the deposit at this point unless the money was gone, in which case you can whistle for the the x3 penalty too and your legal costs.

I would recommend writing to your MP and ask them what they propose to do to fix the Housing Act in the light of the recent TIENSIA v VISION ENTERPRISES LTD decision at the Court of Appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/15/landlords-free-to-ignore-deposit-protection-deadlines

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1224.html

I know. Which is why I added "(Actually it's a bit more complex but that will do as a start!)"

The threat however is still a valid 1st course of action. My guess is this is an amateur LL who is unlikely to know the case law.

Since the Gov website still says:
"If you don't protect your tenants' deposits when required to, your tenants can take you to court and you may have to repay them their deposit plus three times the amount of their deposit."

showing that to the LL may well be enough to get the deposit returned.

clutton_2

if the tenant has signed a 12 month agreeement and moved out after 11 - his LL can legitimately keep the deposit anyway.....

or did the landlord agree in writing an early release if you did sign a 12 month agreement ?


until he answers this question .. we are stymied....

summersj

I had a 12 month contract with a 6 months break clause. I handed in two months notice before I moved so did everything by the book and my LL and estate agents were happy.

dkmax_2

G_M wrote: »

The threat however is still a valid 1st course of action. My guess is this is an amateur LL who is unlikely to know the case law

But a threat of action has always been the valid course, prior to the Housing Act 2004, so the situation isn't that much different to where we were before.

I wonder if a two-pronged attack would succeed. First you sue for the return of your deposit without reference to the Act. Then, when your deposit has been returned or so ordered, you sue for the lack of protection. This situation has not yet been tested although given the stance of the LJs concerned I would not like to bet on an appeal.

A quick fix for the situation might be for the schemes themselves to change their initial requirements and indeed refuse to accept late deposits. Clearly this will be in the best interests of the one custodial scheme.

martindow

summersj wrote: »

I had a 12 month contract with a 6 months break clause. I handed in two months notice before I moved so did everything by the book and my LL and estate agents were happy.

Not really by the book as if you don't take the break option at 6 months the contract commits you to 12. Have you got it in writing from the LL that they accept terminating at 11 months and not paying the 12th month?

dkmax_2

martindow wrote: »

Not really by the book as if you don't take the break option at 6 months the contract commits you to 12. Have you got it in writing from the LL that they accept terminating at 11 months and not paying the 12th month?

The "break option" is normally phrased as an AST comprised of 6 months fixed and the rest as a contracted period - indeed there's really no other way of doing it.

So the OP is very likely to have done this 'by the book' and I see no reason to doubt their belief that the tenancy was ended normally.

summersj

The contract states after my 6 months term I can move out any time I like giving a two months notice. Why I did

The reason for her not returning all my deposit was due to damage but the damage was flooding as she poorly fitted a wet room and it flooded out onto the bedroom carpet which she blames me for and even a plumber has said it's poorly fitted. So it's not a dispute over rent at all