BearlyBegun

Also from ThisIsMoney:

She just wanted it done with, and was happy to get the full deposit back. If it was me I would have persued, especially since this started because the LL wanted to claim £700 for floor damage (caused by walking on it!!!) - although I guess even with a valid claim these things can drag out via small claims I just think my GF couldnt be bothered.

Agree - my current contract states "The Agent must tell the Tenant within 10* working days of the end of the Tenancy if they propose to make any deductions from the Deposit." but the actual TDS description states "You have 20working days to raise a dispute,and theMember has 10working days to resolve it.". You need to check out your contract and the TDS certificate, but it does seem like this has gone on too long.

Yes but I'm referring specifically to an attempt by the landlord to protect the deposit after the tenant has actually left the property (and tenancy expired) - when this happened with my girlfriend the TDS member people said it was then impossible for the landlord to retrospectively make the required deposit in order to progress into a dispute over damages. My GF only choice was to persue through small claims (which wasnt required in the end - just the threat of it, resulted in deposit returned in full) Maybe the TDS people said that because technically a complaint had been initiated, but I got the impression it was more because the tenancy had expired & the TDS couldnt accept a deposit if there was no tenancy. The landlord was stuck and facing a 3x automatic claim.

I've never had a mortgage and to be honest never paid much attention to rates while credit was so freely available before the crash (except perhaps to know that creditwas esceptionally cheap), but I do find a rate of 3.69% above BaseRate a bit scary... particularly under the expectation of rate hikes in the next few years. Can anyone give me a rough idea of what the "average" tracker deals above base rate were like before the credit boom got into full swing? Like around 2001 for example? Were they really this much above Base Rate? To me, that rate seems pretty unattractive...

I was under the impression that this is required only when purchasing a more significant amount i.e. >£5k of gold in one go. If so then several purchases of say £3k of gold, in cash, over a period of time would protect the purchaser - total anonymity?

This seems well underway according to this article today 14% rise in seed sales I live in london so even if I wanted to eat home grown and full of pollution food it would cost me too much for the land/window box to grow it anyway...

I'd like to comment that from my experience it seems to be virtually impossible for the landlord to protect the deposit AFTER the tenant has left the property. I believe the requirement is that deposit must be entered into TDS within 14 days of the start of the contract, not sure where the law stands if its protected say a week before end of contract, but certainly if the tenant has already left it seems very difficult to get round.

I'm glad you've fought this case and am very interested to hear the eventual ending. From everything I read it all seems totally clear cut in your favour, so here's hoping after the dragging out of it you get your just rewards. 3x deposit would make it worthwhile! The closest I've seen recently in similar situation was with my girlfriend regarding a London flat she rented with someone. The deposit wasnt protected and upon leaving the landlord wanted £700 to re-floor the entire room, for stupid reasons. I encouraged my girlfriend to dispute this via DPS, and when I realised they hadnt protected we basically threatened Small Claims Court -> they quickly realised their mistake and liability and returned full deposit. We could have persued for the 3x claim anyway but it seemed like a satisfactory outcome so it ended there. I am really pleased for renters that this has been brought in and is upheld so strongly by Small Claims if the deposit isnt protected. I havent suffered myself but know of numberous friends who have been basically scammed over the years into losing some or all deposit over things they felt they couldnt fight. Power to the tenants!

Thanks - yes I see why its attractive to the landlord, and sometimes the tenant too. It doesnt bother me, I guess I'm just curious as they've never pushed for this before. Ah, I didnt realise this. Its why I couldnt understand the EA angle - I thought their payment was pretty fixed regardless of term they secured, in which case it would have been much more in their interest to do 'the paperwork' and charge their fee as often as possible...your comment makes sense cheers

Certainly H&L are good - see this article from today ThisIsMoney article which suggests "Share dealing fees range from £9.95 to £29.95. So HL may not be best for heavy share traders."

Hi everyone, I've been renting in london for the last 10years or so in various places - my lease is currently up and I'm looking for a new place again (my 4th in the last 5years). I'm normally offered a 1 year contract with 6month break clause (which I thought not only standard for AST's but also that the 6month break was a legal requirement to protect the tenant in the event that the landlord fails to live up to requirements etc. - is it a legal req or not?) In viewing now 2xEA's have told me when I've been looking at properties that they are 'currently' recommending tenants go for a 2year contract with a break clause after 1year. They give a variety of reasons (rent might not be reviewed for >1yr / more stability for landlord etc) but does anyone have any thoughts on why they are pushing this now? Thanks for your thoughts

New Kitco Gold Index if anyone's interested - trying to take dollar weakness out of the equation:

Couldnt see this on the new format main board, apologies if already posted: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/buy-to-let/article.html?in_article_id=491499&in_page_id=56&position=moretopstories "Mr Wilson also denies he is desperate for cash to keep his property empire afloat. He claims to have three buyers 'cutting each other's throats' to buy the couple's portfolio. "

Thank you Traktion - that helps me alot

Thanks for all the replies. Particularly concerning to hear that the sugar ETF crashed with AIG, or the threat of potential siezure in meltdown circumstances e.g by US government. With regards to investment or protection - with PM for me it has to be a bit of both. I've been looking at silver and if I decide that a thrust upwards is upon us then I have some decisions to make. The premium on silver/VAT is rather off putting for buying which is why I took a look at ETF, but I appreciate there are risks associated in the face of a more serious collapse in the UK/world. I do like the idea of having it (gold or silver) in my hand though...harder for any government to rip from my grasp!

I've been reading much on this site, and indeed this section about gold and other PM including silver. 1 thing that I've noticed a few times is peoples negative attitude to ETFs - can anyone explain their concerns more fully? Obviously they are realtively new, which understandably creates a certain level of wariness in itself, but are there any specific concerns other than this? I also appreciate they are a paper based investment that could go seriously wrong if not backed by physical or if certain market conditions mean that redeeming this paper is impossible. Surely though the same fear could be attributed to holding fiat currency in these troubling times? Is that why everyone prefers to buy physical or am I missing something? I ask as I'm looking to pick up a PM ETF but want to know more about the potential downsides... Thanks for your opinions

So do you feel there will be a Daddy Bear scenario with imminent bond market collapse/foreign investment flees followed by currency collapse? I'm not convinced any government would continue printing throughout all the indicators that would precede this... more likely they take equally extreme steps to avoid.

I've just had a quick look at the troll subforum and all I can see in the top 10-15 topics are a few from xcojo & sibs saying e.g. 'HPC is over, admit it" etc with little back up as to why, a few about a previous umentionable poster & some test topics or random topics... I cant see anything that shouldnt be there - which topics do you mean? There are still a few bull topics on the main board page 1 that I've read today, still there?

Surely too early to call although I agree with the direction - I would be waiting for gold to push past $1030. <10 days if you're right

I seriously had not even noticed at all until someone mentioned it to me last week...

Quotes: "extremely favourable demographics due to unprecedented wave of migration from new europe" Whilst this BBC article suggests that migration is falling and becoming more cyclical subject to available jobs..which makes sense. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8243225.stm In my part of london there is anecdotal evidence that migrant workers are going elsewhere or not arriving in the first place. They're often the first to go when cuts in workforce are made.

I'm in the same universe as Tulip then. the recognition in the markets that we are screwed will arrive soon enough. Commodities have stabilised but that wont help the FTSE, not enough anyway. I see us testing the 4000 level by year end and I dont really see it improving until after election so hitting 3700 a real possibility.

I'm still toying with a leveraged short on the FTSE - I think a massive drop is imminent. Next few weeks should reveal all

He's got some good points and the simple graphs illustrate them well enough... "No amount of magical handwaving will change it, leaving us with only two choices: we either force the bad debt out into the open and default it, thereby shrinking both the balance sheets of banks and consumers (at the same time) or we continue to try to "press our bets" and take the risk of a second credit-system dislocation that will be far worse than what we experienced last fall and this spring. At present we are choosing path #2 - a river that is quickening in pace." How would we go about forcing this debt into the open & defaulting it (option#1)? And what immediate repercussions of doing that? I dont understand economics well enough to even imagine how we might go about that course of action...