TDS Questions

teeni

We definately need case law to clarify things, but i agree with neverdispairgirl it appears to say that ll includes agents,

teeni

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

It would appear to imply that if the landlord can show that the deposit was still with a third party then his liability is limited.

Anyway you are the housing advisor, you should be telling me!

Thank you for the clarification of your point. this is an interesting point to argue, if the funds are with the agent is that equal to the funds having been paid to the ll? It would appear to state that it does but as has been stated elsewhere this is only going to be clarified when it is used as argument in court.

The sooner these cases start getting heard in court the better, then we will all have clarification of matters.

teeni

prudryden wrote: »

There is also a possibility that a tenant can only get a court order to (1) require safeguard of deposit or (2) to receive prescribed information on deposit. A court can only issue a court order if these 2 items haven't been complied with. If LL has already complied, albeit late, then the court has nothing to issue a court order about. Seemingly, a court can only grant a penalty after a court order has been issued requiring the above. However, since the court can't issue an order against something that has already been done and there has been no injury, it follows that it can not issue a penalty.

Any comments on the above hypothetical scenario?

Interesting scenario, if the deposit has been protected late it would appear to fail to have met the requirements of the scheme so hypothetically the landlord could/ should be fined as per s 214 (4), dont you think. I will have to give this one a bit more thought, other peoples interpretations would be good to see .

m1ntie

"It is a matter of principal for me...I am most definitely not planning on trashing the place, nor leaving bills unpaid. With transactions like renting, it only works when both sides fulfill their obligations and my LL has failed to do so - why shouldn't I sue them? "

Absolute bull**** - at least have the honesty to admit you are just after the money. From the tone of your post I would think principals and you are complete strangers!

Captain_Mainwaring_2

m1ntie wrote: »

"It is a matter of principal for me...I am most definitely not planning on trashing the place, nor leaving bills unpaid. With transactions like renting, it only works when both sides fulfill their obligations and my LL has failed to do so - why shouldn't I sue them? "

Absolute bull**** - at least have the honesty to admit you are just after the money. From the tone of your post I would think principals and you are complete strangers!

And common sense prevails.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

teeni wrote: »

Thank you for the clarification of your point. this is an interesting point to argue, if the funds are with the agent is that equal to the funds having been paid to the ll? It would appear to state that it does but as has been stated elsewhere this is only going to be clarified when it is used as argument in court.

The sooner these cases start getting heard in court the better, then we will all have clarification of matters.

the legislation looks like it has been thought out and drawn up by a ten year old, it is pathetically lacking, unfortunately it gives greedy little people the chance to try a quick money grab, needs a few decisions against claimants and a few big costs awarded.

teeni

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

the legislation looks like it has been thought out and drawn up by a ten year old, it is pathetical lacking, unfortunately it gives greedy little people the chance to try a quick money grab, needs a few decisions against claimants and a few big costs awarded.

Not all tenants are greedy little people, that is like saying all landlords are going to refuse to do repairs or return deposits for no good reaon,
for far too long some very unscrupulous landlords have retained deposits for no good reaon and now the tables could be turning on them they dont like it. Unfortunately as is often the case the good tenants/landlords are equally effected.

If cases are challenged through the small claims court then the costs awards will not be large, and if the case is brought as part of a defence to a possession action becasue of the defective s21 notice angle then i would hope that tenant was eligible for legal aid because you can never guarentee an outcome and the risk of a large cost award usually stops people (based on the clients i see) from defending anyway,

As I said roll on the case law it is usually the case law that makes sense of most legislation.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

teeni wrote: »

Not all tenants are greedy little people, that is like saying all landlords are going to refuse to do repairs or return deposits for no good reaon,
for far too long some very unscrupulous landlords have retained deposits for no good reaon and now the tables could be turning on them they dont like it. Unfortunately as is often the case the good tenants/landlords are equally effected.

If cases are challenged through the small claims court then the costs awards will not be large, and if the case is brought as part of a defence to a possession action becasue of the defective s21 notice angle then i would hope that tenant was eligible for legal aid because you can never guarentee an outcome and the risk of a large cost award usually stops people (based on the clients i see) from defending anyway,

As I said roll on the case law it is usually the case law that makes sense of most legislation.

Well let's hope that this has sufficiently frightened our OP who did appear to be greedy.

Bloody legal aid wants a damned good overhaul - as it stands any herbert can turn round and go on a crusade out of spite knowing that they can't lose and as always Joe Public pays up - that's not what legal aid is for.

clutton_2

""as it stands any herbert can turn round and go on a crusade out of spite knowing that they can't lose"

just not so - if you get legal aid, and you win the case you must repay your legal costs our of your award - in effect Legal Aid becomes a loan

this even applies to folks injured in for example car accidents via uninsured drivers, they get an award, then the Benefits Agency can reclaim all the disability benefit they have received while preparing the case ....

not quite as "easy peasy" as you suggest MMR

teeni

clutton wrote: »

""as it stands any herbert can turn round and go on a crusade out of spite knowing that they can't lose"

just not so - if you get legal aid, and you win the case you must repay your legal costs our of your award - in effect Legal Aid becomes a loan

this even applies to folks injured in for example car accidents via uninsured drivers, they get an award, then the Benefits Agency can reclaim all the disability benefit they have received while preparing the case ....

not quite as "easy peasy" as you suggest MMR

You beat me to it clutton

Also you have to have sufficient merit in your argument to entitle you to legal aid in the first place. so any old herbert CANNOT go on a crusade at the expence of Joe Public.