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

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

...The point is that when you have to go to court to enforce a point of law, there is some penalty for the person who has not complied with the law. There has to be some disincentive to break to the law, even if people think they will get away with it...

Not usual in a county court. The judge is really only interested in the 'fair' result, normally in enforcing the law, plus the actual and reasonable expenses of the claimant in enforcing his right (assuming the claimant wins, else the defendant is usually awarded his expenses.)

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

Not usual in a county court. The judge is really only interested in the 'fair' result, normally in enforcing the law, plus the actual and reasonable expenses of the claimant in enforcing his right (assuming the claimant wins, else the defendant is usually awarded his expenses.)

you are referring to a more usual county court situation where A owes B some money which is disputed etc. This is not the same thing as 'breaking the law'.

This situation is different as is it set out in statute that A must do something which they have not done.

Tell me some of the 'many' laws where there is no penalty for not complying. As you said yourself there isn't any/many as they would be totally pointless.

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

Not usual in a county court. The judge is really only interested in the 'fair' result, normally in enforcing the law, plus the actual and reasonable expenses of the claimant in enforcing his right (assuming the claimant wins, else the defendant is usually awarded his expenses.)

what would be a 'fair result' in enforcing the law when the law says the landlord must do something within 14 days which they have not done.

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

you are referring to a more usual county court situation where A owes B some money which is disputed etc. This is not the same thing as 'breaking the law'.

This situation is different as is it set out in statute that A must do something which they have not done.

Tell me some of the 'many' laws where there is no penalty for not complying. As you said yourself there isn't any/many as they would be totally pointless.

moneysavinmonkey wrote:

The County Court, often referred to as the Small Claims Court deals with civil matters, such as:

• Claims for debt repayment, including enforcing court orders and return of goods bought on credit,
• Personal Injury
• Breach of contract concerning goods or property
• Family issues such as divorce or adoption |
• Housing disputes, including mortgage and council rent arrears and re-possession.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/county/index.htm

what would be a 'fair result' in enforcing the law when the law says the landlord must do something within 14 days which they have not done.

What would you think would be a 'fair' resolution from a complaint by a LL pursuing say rent owed, and not paid by the tenant?

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/county/index.htm

yes, exactly. Glad we agree then ? !

Premier wrote: »

What would you think would be a 'fair' resolution from a complaint by a LL pursuing say rent owed, and not paid by the tenant?

again, that is contract law, but I am talking about statute.
why didn't you answer my question?

pippamannequin

Ok, Ive checked with all three deposit schemes, DPS, TDSL,TDS and all three have confirmed my deposit nor my property is registered with any of them.

The deposit was paid 9 months ago and following my last reminder regarding it im guessing it's just not going to get protected.

Premier_2

k60sav wrote: »

Ok, Ive checked with all three deposit schemes, DPS, TDSL,TDS and all three have confirmed my deposit nor my property is registered with any of them.

The deposit was paid 9 months ago and following my last reminder regarding it im guessing it's just not going to get protected.

Sorry, perhaps you missed this advice I posted earlier.

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

pippamannequin

Premier wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps you missed this advice I posted earlier.


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

Sorry, yes, i should have added it looks like it's not going to get protected 'unless i take the landlords to court'

Which, i add, is my next move I know this sounds extremely blonde (I am) but what exactly does this bit mean?...
Quote ''Although it appears that if, by the time of the hearing, the landlord has complied with the requirement there is no sanction.''

RabbitMad

K60sav,

In your position I would write to my LL asking for confirmation that my deposit was protected. I would also write to each of the schemes asking for confirmation in writing that my deposit hadn't been protected.

Then if it still wasn't protected I would start proceedings asking for the 3x penalty. Check out the consumer forums and landlord zone for advice.

I would take what premier is writing with a pinch of salt, I think that you are entitled to 3x your deposit (although I think this law is poorly drafted) but you've got to persuade a judge that that is the case too.

Premier_2

RabbitMad wrote: »

K60sav,

In your position I would write to my LL asking for confirmation that my deposit was protected. I would also write to each of the schemes asking for confirmation in writing that my deposit hadn't been protected.

Then if it still wasn't protected I would start proceedings asking for the 3x penalty. Check out the consumer forums and landlord zone for advice.

I would take what premier is writing with a pinch of salt, I think that you are entitled to 3x your deposit (although I think this law is poorly drafted) but you've got to persuade a judge that that is the case too.

Read post#87

k60sav has already done what you propose.

As regards to what I posted, it was from the propertylawuk,net website, maninatined by Gary Webber, a barrister in property law with 22 years experience.
You can contact Gary directly, details on his website, should you wish to question the validity or otherwise of what he has published.
http://www.propertylawuk.net/contact.html
http://www.garywebber.co.uk/