TDS Questions

Captain_Mainwaring_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

If someone has a right in law, can't see how this is "scamming". The LL should get a grip - "ignorance of the law is no defence", of course!

Yeh, that attitude and the likes of the Blair witch have done the country a power of good.

These things have a habit of coming full circle, and in the unlikely even of them getting a result, they had better hope they pay off the OD and save like crazy, because you can bet that the judgement will be recorded on the TDS website and the OP will be lucky if they can rent a bench under a bridge afterwards.

Whatever happened to being reasonable?

teeni

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

As it happens you are too late, you should have made your petty attempt before the landlord registered the deposit, and just having had a chat with a circuit judge they mentioned that in the first place they would only order the landlord to place the money in the scheme, then if he didn't comply would you get your "bonus". They also suggested that they wouldn't entertain costs in the matter.

I really find this sort of thing about as noxious as Esther Rancid promoting ambulance chasing solicitors and those tacky little companies who "exploit a piece of liitle known government legislation" to attempt to make money and get people to weedle out of their debts to the detriment of creditors.

Yes, the landlord has a duty to comply, but if it is a bit late and everything else is otherwise satisfactory, then a simple request to him should be enough.


If you go ahead, I sincerely hope it goes very wrong for you and you get lumbered with the LL's costs as well.

Strange the case law seems to state otherwise, in stankova v glassonbury on march 10th the court found for the tenant and awarded the deposit plus the 3xdeposit fine and actually said in his ruling that he found it distastful but there was no option because of the wording of the law, since this ruling i have succesfully acheived the return of deposit plus 3x the deposit for 4 clients with out having to issue court procedings but based on the pre action letter.

Perhaps you could out of interest discuss this with your friend who is a circuit judge to see how his advice to you stands against this case law, I would be interested in his opinion.

Thanks

Captain_Mainwaring_2

teeni wrote: »

Strange the case law seems to state otherwise, in stankova v glassonbury on march 10th the court found for the tenant and awarded the deposit plus the 3xdeposit fine and actually said in his ruling that he found it distastful but there was no option because of the wording of the law, since this ruling i have succesfully acheived the return of deposit plus 3x the deposit for 4 clients with out having to issue court procedings but based on the pre action letter.

Perhaps you could out of interest discuss this with your friend who is a circuit judge to see how his advice to you stands against this case law, I would be interested in his opinion.

Thanks

Yes, will ask again and point this one out - BUT

A couple of things spring to mind, the first case is completely different to this and the LL was somewhat lacking, and even then the judge wasn't impressed. In this case the LL never did pay it, despite being "reminded". In this case are you saying that a retrospective action is really in order?

Secondly is your implication that you are a lawyer in fact the case?

An interesting point raised was...

Because the TRUE reason for the TDS is not to protect tenants from all us greedy LL's. The REAL reason is so that the government ( HMCR ) can access the data held by the schemes and then cross check to see if all taxes have been paid.

Hence, you pay your taxes ( Which we all should anyway ) or HMCR don'thave to worry about chasing you up, as the good old tenant will do it for them and get paid for the job!!

THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO DO THIS !!!!!!

Seems pretty easy to me - £1 deposit and 3 months rent up front.

Go to court for £3

prudryden

At the county court level, a judge has an incredible amount of latitude. He doesn't have to follow the letter of the law or precedents and can make decisions based on his own judgement.

I would expect that a LL who complied with the law albeit a bit late and no one suffered any harm would not have to pay anything. But then again you never know until the day in court. That is what makes going to court so exciting. I love it.

Bungarm2001

HATE to be pendantic, but go to court for 4 quid...deposit x 3 + deposit £1=£4 :rotfl: :rotfl:

"If someone has a right in law, can't see how this is "scamming". The LL should get a grip - "ignorance of the law is no defence", of course!"

How true, but be honest, how many LL's and LA's have a grip on all the relevant legislation they have to comply with? Particularly when you add on all the carp that has gone thru in the last 5 years? Have you seen how much there is?? AND how much is still coming thru?? Even those who have to enforce these rules/laws whatever have a hard time keeping up with it all. What chance has an amateur LL??

Anyway, hand on heart, can anyone honestly say that they haven't been caught out by ignorance of some law or other throughout their lifetime?

As for someone rolling over and paying up 3x deposit on the strength of a letter, well words fail me. You'd have to drag me to court if it were me.

clutton_2

i have just written 2 very strong letters on behalf of my latest tenant to her ex landlady - threatening court action, quoting this latest stankova v glassonbury case - not a tweet - not a call - not a reply - zilch - some landlords deserve to be punished -

she provided no deposit scheme, withheld the deposit, no CORGI cert, let herself in when she wanted, could not calculate her income accurately as tenant was on HB and her mortgage monthly - had her rent paid into her mothers account ............

the tenant does not want me to do anything further - she does not want the stress....

this is what b"a"tches of landladies like this rely on - their bullying tactics - makes me seethe

Notlob

prudryden wrote: »

If you paid the deposit to an agency, then this is one of the few cases that your claim is against the agent, NOT the LL. Generally, the LL has ultimate responsibility for most things, but in the case of deposit protection - the responsibility rests with whom the deposit was paid to.

Incorrect, The responsibility is solely with the LL to protect deposits. The landlord will have to sue the agent for failing to carry out their duties.

SquatNow

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

YES it IS a legal requirement for the LL/LA to place the deposit, but you are not reading my post...the TDS scheme only came fully into force in April 2007, just over a year ago. Not everyone is a professional LL and some LL's rightly or wrongly are still NOT aware that this requirement exists until it's pointed out to them.

If you're going to be a landlord you should make sure you KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING. If you don't understand the laws you should employ someone who does. If you don't then you should expect to get punished harshly.

If someone who had never driven before got in a car, drove it through a red light and caused a crash, the book would be thrown at them. The fact that they didn't know the red light meant stop so it wasn't their fault would NOT be a defence.

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

True, every LL should make sure they are aware of ALL legal requirements well before they come into force, but the truth is, some just don't because letting properties is not a major concern for them, just a sideline.

Whether it's their main job or a sideline, If I was running a business with a turnover of hundreds if not thousands of pounds a month I'de make sure I knew what I was doing.

If you haven't got time to do it properly, then don't become a landlord.

Too many people see BTL as a get-rich-quick scheme which requires no effort, instead of what it is... a massive responsibility which if done badly can lead to huge fines and possibly prison sentences.

teeni

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Yes, will ask again and point this one out - BUT

A couple of things spring to mind, the first case is completely different to this and the LL was somewhat lacking, and even then the judge wasn't impressed. In this case the LL never did pay it, despite being "reminded". In this case are you saying that a retrospective action is really in order?

Secondly is your implication that you are a lawyer in fact the case?

I will deal with your second question first, i have never implied that I am a laywer only that I am a legal advisor speciallising in Housing/homeless law. This is a fact as is my participation in assisting clients in court on a regular basis under the legal help scheme.

secondly my reading of the o/p question was whether she had the right to apply to court and whether the landlord could be fined even if he now belatedly protected the deposit. in stankova v glastonbury, the landlord had belatedly put the deposit in a scheme and the judgement was still made against him and an order for costs made, whether the ll has paid this is not at this stage relevant , the fact is the court made the order, and whilst i am sure that there will be challenges, as i have stated i am now finding in the light of this ruling ll who i am dealing with are being advised by their solicitors to pay up to avoid court costs.
H/a 2004 states that
(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.

whilst the return of the deposit or the requirement to put the deposit in a scheme appears to be up to the court s214 sub section 4 clearly states that the judge MUST order an award of 3 times the deposit.

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

Given everything above i was genuinely interested in the thoughts of your friend who is a circuit judge as i am not in the position to socialize with judges to discuss this informally. I did not expect to have my professional integrity questioned for asking a question.

teeni

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

HATE to be pendantic, but go to court for 4 quid...deposit x 3 + deposit £1=£4 :rotfl: :rotfl:

"If someone has a right in law, can't see how this is "scamming". The LL should get a grip - "ignorance of the law is no defence", of course!"

How true, but be honest, how many LL's and LA's have a grip on all the relevant legislation they have to comply with? Particularly when you add on all the carp that has gone thru in the last 5 years? Have you seen how much there is?? AND how much is still coming thru?? Even those who have to enforce these rules/laws whatever have a hard time keeping up with it all. What chance has an amateur LL??

Anyway, hand on heart, can anyone honestly say that they haven't been caught out by ignorance of some law or other throughout their lifetime?

As for someone rolling over and paying up 3x deposit on the strength of a letter, well words fail me. You'd have to drag me to court if it were me.

To be honest I have been surprised at the response but i think it is also the fact that in two of the cases they would risk having s21 notices defended in full with the help of legal aid to safeguard the costs for the tenant but at the risk of costs awards against them for a fully defended case if they lose, and whilst this law is still so new they dont want to be the ones to try it out.

The other two simply agreed once their solicitors pointed out the law in balck and white to them as i understand it, and no one was more surprised that me i can tell you when the cheques arrived on the office desk.