WhatAreMyChances

Well, I've decided to take it further. I have had my solicitor send the LL a letter stating that I have a claim for 3x the deposit plus the amount of deposit retained. The letter states that if the court is satisified that S213 is not complied with, that the fine is mandatory, and not at the discretion of the court, and that the LL's only defence would be to prove that he did abide by the scheme, which he of course would be unable to do. I will keep you posted how I get on, he has 7 days.

I hear ya.... this was through a local agent who seemed fairly respectable. They did everything they were supposed too, but were only letting the place, the LL managed the place. How were we to know what he was going to be like?

From my research I have found that there has been several cases where the 3x deposit has been paid by the LL. An example: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...-case-n208.html One person has posted that there has been 18 cases with 12 in favour of the tenant and 6 in favour of the LL (although I cant verify this). The ones that went against the Tenent were due to the following: 1) The claim being post tenancy and judge ruling that the HA2004 only applies to existing tenants (hard to believe!) 2) Because the deposit was received prior to the April 2007 date. 3) That the full deposit was paid back immediately after tenancy, so no financial loss to tenant (fair enough I think) 4) Because the claim was against the agent, and the agent claimed it was the LL's responsibility. Hope this helps...

Thanks.... I'll have hunt for it. As for the deduction, its for the final inventory check, which is listed in the contract. I'd like to dispute it on following points: 1) I havent been given a receipt 2) I havent been given a copy of the final inventory 3) Because I also paid the check in, this is a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and therefore a Unfair Term as listed in the Consumers Contracts Regulations 1999 (a long shot!) 4) Because the deposit wasnt protected, I havent been given a chance to dispute it, as I would have been given if the deposit was held in a TDS. I'm hoping the HA04 is clear that if the money hasnt been protected, the judge must rule that the deposit must be returned in full (he cant protect it) and the 3x paid. The reasons for the dispute shouldnt come into it in the first place. (Hoping so anyways!) Your thoughts? PS Thanks for the help - appreciated.

Excellent. I look forward to Mr Henson. And thanks.

Hi there, I was hoping I could get some views / advice on the following... I moved out of my apartment in January, after completing a 12 month tenancy agreement. I wasnt too sure how the whole TDS thing worked but asked the LL during tenancy which scheme our deposit was held with and LL replied by stating that the deposit would be returned within 3 days of him receiving the final inventory. I didnt know this money should have been held in a TDS, and didnt chase it further. After I moved out, I completed the inventory with a 3rd party, which was 100% ok. For the next 3 weeks, I emailed the LL 7 times, and not once did he reply. I also called him twice and left messages both times which werent returned. Getting rather frustrated at this stage I emailed him asking which TDS scheme the deposit was with. And he started asking for information like when we moved out etc, and to send copies of our final bills. I did this straight away as I was up to date with my payments. I also now have letters from all 3 TDS's stating that my deposit was not held with them, so it was never protected. After another week and no action, I sent a nasty letter saying that if he didnt pay my deposit back within 7 working days, I would take him to court under S214 of the housing act. I got my deposit, less £100 back within 2 days, but with a mention that there were some damages on the inventory that he wasnt going to chase up for the sake of closing the matter. How insulting! Given this, do I still have grounds to go to court for the 3x deposit? I feel that the fact that I had to send a nasty letter was the only reason why he eventually paid up, and the chasing I had to do to get it back in the first place, along with the time it actually took to finally get the deposit back was completely not in the spirit of the Housing Act. I also have not been given an opportunity to dispute the £100 deduction. I've also heard that because I am no longer a tenant, that the Housing Act no longer applies? Any views, advice or help is greatly appreciated.