TDS- Should I cash the cheque??

newbiejolly

That does contradict the guidelines, but my case is simple. Paid deposit after april 2007 and only signed one AST, landlord didnt protect it and only returned it 2 months after I moved out because I sent a letter about tds.

Does the judge take other things into consideration? Like the way the landlord dealt with things like repairs (LL did zero), rent collection (whenever LL felt like it), refusing to provide an address? Also I have receipts for carpets etc- the tenancy was supposed to be furnished? Picture proof of damp and poor condition etc

prudryden

You will be awarded the 3xdeposit judgement based on what you said. You may also get expenses.

clutton_2

return of deposit is one thing

dilapidations are another -

if you can prove financial loss as a result of the bad condition of the property - increased fuel bills for example - you could add on that as part of the claim - but you have to have had a loss to take him to court for money

Loretta

clutton wrote: »

Send the LL a receipt. If the LLs letter contains the phrase "in full and final settlement" you need to write back immediately saying that you have not accepted it in full and final settlement, but that you accept it in part payment - that is if you plan to pursue this 3xdeposit business

However, i doubt very much if the court will understand why you are trying to get the deposit out of the landlord when this is the courts' job to rule as to whether the LL has broken the law or not.

if you want this 3xdep - you will have to go to moneyclaim on line and take him to court

What you say in your letter is, I have received your cheque for £.... in part payment of.... etc. send it straight away and it give you time to think then

neverdespairgirl

silvercar wrote: »

Which contradicts the schemes guidelines.

Just goes to show that you can never guarantee winning in court.

You can never, ever guarantee winning in court. It's called "litigation risk" for a reason!

MissMoneypenny

prudryden wrote: »

Surprise, evidently there is a recent case where Judge Allen in Brentford County Court ruled against the tenant because the deposit was paid pre Apr 2007 even though a new AST was signed post Apr 2007. He reasoned that there was no new deposit paid.

That bit always did seem to be a bit of a grey area for both tenants and LLs. Perhaps those wanting to sign new contracts should take legal advice if their original deposit was paid pre TDS requirement?

I wonder if the deposit will have to be given back to the tenant and then straight back to the LL again so that it can go into one of the schemes, or whether an agreement can be put in place to show the deposit is for the new agreement and therefore should be deposited in a TDS?

silvercar

The rules seem to state that if a tenant signs a new AST after April 2007 (as opposed to "going periodic") the original deposit needs protecting.

SquatNow

The rules are simple:
1) Judges are generally ignorant of any law written after they became a judge and stopped being a barrister.
2) Judges are often landlords on the side.

Unless you have a clear cut case that no-one could argue over, even if your legally right, it probably isn't worth bothering unless you're a solicitor yourself, in which, you ALSO probably have a selection of BTL properties.

Remember:
The landed elite run this country for THIER benefit, not YOURS.

Gorgeous_George

The OP has received his deposit in full with £76 extra (possibly interest on the deposit).

If I was the judge, I would dismiss any further claim - providing there was a legitimate route to do so. Whilst I knew of the new requirement well before April 2007 and I protected my tenant's deposit when the AST was signed in May 2007, I think a little 'benefit of the doubt' could reasonably be applied in this case.

If you are not doing it for the money, why not donate to a suitable charity (Shelter perhaps) if you win? Maybe the £76 could be a starter? With Gift Aid, that would be almost £100.



GG

SquatNow

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If I was the judge, I would dismiss any further claim - providing there was a legitimate route to do so. Whilst I knew of the new requirement well before April 2007 and I protected my tenant's deposit when the AST was signed in May 2007, I think a little 'benefit of the doubt' could reasonably be applied in this case.

There is no benefit of the doubt on a point of law.... it black or white not grey. However most judges do not yet fully understand the law and some have been interpereting it in contridiction of the clear letter of the law.

Also many judges are landlords and more than a little unwilling to make any judement agains landlords that may harm their own interests!!!!