Has anybody been awarded 3x their deposit because of TDS?

pippamannequin

SteveyLomas wrote: »

k60sav,

I am absolutely convinced KSav you should start thinking of what to do with your 3x deposit windfall. Yours is as clear a case as you could hope for, and you can log onto www.moneyclaim.org to start your case knowing full well you should win.

I would write a letter to the landlord saying unless you receive 3x deposit, or proof that deposit was placed in a TDS within 14 days of paying the deposit, you will in 7 days issue court proceedings.

When the 7 days expire, file your claim with www.moneyclaim.org. They will then be sent by the court details of the claim made by you. They have 14 days to file a response. If they don't, you will win by default and they will have to pay. If they do, you will have to go to court and you will win. After this they will have to pay. clutton mentioned you may have to get a warrant but this is fine. They will pay when you have a warrant. As property owners, they will probably have plenty of assets you can get your hands on. And they will be suffering every day there is a judgement upon them. Their credit will be affected. Better still, if they don't pay in 30 days, their name will be on the files for 6 years.

I've been through this process myself (there is a thread somewhere), it was incredibly simple and the process is very easy.

Good luck.

Thankyou, very much. I shant assume but you do give me confidence which, in this case, is what is needed. Maybe if you could post a link to your thread i could have a read. Many thanks.

poppysarah

Should people have to go through the court process? If landlords can evade using the schemes then some other method of sorting it out should be available, where persistent landlords can be dealt with.

top_drawer_2

hi,

I have read through the thread and cant seem to see any information regarding a) whether I can give my notice in and possibily even move out then claim (my LL could make my life extremely uncomfortable to put it mildly if I tried before)
b) how to go about it taking it to small claims (or is Stevey Lomas's post the way?)

Thanks

Jen

terryw

top_drawer wrote: »

hi,

I have read through the thread and cant seem to see any information regarding a) whether I can give my notice in and possibily even move out then claim (my LL could make my life extremely uncomfortable to put it mildly if I tried before)
b) how to go about it taking it to small claims (or is Stevey Lomas's post the way?)

Thanks

Jen

b) yes or fill the papers in and take to your local court.

terryw

terryw

poppysarah wrote: »

Should people have to go through the court process? If landlords can evade using the schemes then some other method of sorting it out should be available, where persistent landlords can be dealt with.

Poppy,

I understand your sentiments, but at the moment this is all quite new. Yes, court is the only way but within a short period because of these severe penalties, all deposits will be paid into the schemes.

terryw

poppysarah

terryw wrote: »

Poppy,

I understand your sentiments, but at the moment this is all quite new. Yes, court is the only way but within a short period because of these severe penalties, all deposits will be paid into the schemes.

terryw

From what I've read of the scheme there isn't a mechanism within it for sorting out non-held deposits. Or have I missed it? I know court is an option - but is there an rental deposit ombudsam who has remit to look at it?

top_drawer_2

terryw wrote: »

b) yes or fill the papers in and take to your local court.

terryw

which papers should I ask for as that link doesnt seem to work.

Jen

Premier_2

top_drawer wrote: »

hi,

I have read through the thread and cant seem to see any information regarding a) whether I can give my notice in and possibily even move out then claim (my LL could make my life extremely uncomfortable to put it mildly if I tried before)
b) how to go about it taking it to small claims (or is Stevey Lomas's post the way?)

Thanks

Jen

I wouldn't suggest following Stevey Lomas's advice, as the 3x thing is a sanction imposed by the court, not something you should be suing for.

This is what the law says:

213 Requirements relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.
(2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received.
(4) For the purposes of this section “the initial requirements” of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.
(5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,
as may be prescribed.
(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.
(7) No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money.
(8) In subsection (7) “deposit” means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—
(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b) the discharge of any liability of his,
arising under or in connection with the tenancy.
(9) The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary.
(10) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits
(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.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.
(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.
(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19


or in plain English:

If a tenant is concerned that his deposit is not protected by a scheme and/or he has not been provided with the prescribed information and/or the scheme administrator does not confirm that their deposit is protected then he can commence proceedings against the landlord under HA 2004, s 214. Although it appears that if, by the time of the hearing, the landlord has complied with the requirement there is no sanction. If the court finds that the landlord is in breach then it must order up to three times the amount of the deposit to be paid to the tenant within 14 days (s 214(4)) as well as ordering the deposit to be paid either into the custodial scheme or to the tenant (s 213(3)).

http://www.propertylawuk.net/residentialdeposits.html


Post#93 explains how to obtain papers

I wouldn't suggest using moneyclaim online for this as your claim is not for a fixed amount. You should be claiming that your deposit is not protected under an authorised scheme. Let the court then do it's job.
e.g. if you claim 4x your deposit (i.e. including return of initial deposit), the LL may have already protected it before the hearing, so your claim would fail. Even if not, the court may decide to order it to be protected, again throwing out your fixed amount claim.

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

That's an interesting statistic. Is that 75% of cases where the LL appears in court even though it has been returned or protected? Or 75% of cases where the LL is unlawfully holding the deposit unprotected? (In the latter case I would hope it was nearer 100%)

Roughly how many cases does that cover in total?

Also, as you say, it may not be that typical. I guess it doesn't take into account cases that are dropped by mutual agreement before the court hearing (e.g. LL knows he would lose so either hands back deposit or protects it), or even if the LL was foolish enough not to do that, perhaps settles under the terms of a confidential settlement agreement reached by small claims mediation prior to the court hearing.

I'm not sure - I was listening to OH in passing (-:

I think he said it was about 150 cases - he's the director of a law centre, and has contacts with another couple.

terryw

As an aside to the main thread here, it is interesting that this piece of legislation is rapidly gaining more publicity and people are becoming more knowledgeable about the 3x penalty. It can't be long before the courts give a uniform definitive answer. I wonder how long it will be before private firms start advertising on daytime tv with "No win No fee" offers.

terryw