Tenancy Deposit Protection...

[crash2006]

do you want to sign another contract with them? if not you can late pay your rent up to 5 or 8 weeks not sure what the time period is but its one of those, say if its 5 weeks if you pay 4 weeks 6 days there is nothing they can do too you, they can't take you to court over late payment.

[A.steve]

do you want to sign another contract with them? if not you can late pay your rent up to 5 or 8 weeks not sure what the time period is but its one of those, say if its 5 weeks if you pay 4 weeks 6 days there is nothing they can do too you, they can't take you to court over late payment.

:-) My primary concern is not that I get my deposit back - though that would, of course, be pleasant... I'm really enjoying fine dining at the moment and a few hundred extra in my pocket helps me justify a lifestyle above fast-food, but the cash isn't the end of the world.

What I really do want to establish is from whom I'm renting... I want to know if I've been the pawn in a fraud over the past couple of years... and I'll be very dis-chuffed if it transpires I was paying good money to rent a house, but the owner was unaware of my tenancy...

This tenancy deposit protection, for me, is not just about getting my deposit back (less fair deductions - I'm an OK but imperfect tenant) but also about establishing that the considerable sums I've paid in rent were not cash going straight into a scam. I want clarity about a deal into which I entered in good faith having taken every reasonable step to behave diligently and honestly... but where, it now appears, the other parties are finding it difficult to comply with the law.

[SPhilpott]

Another point on this I would like to clarify...

I think my situation may apply to others also....

In a similar situation, great tenants, LL didnt protect deposit, LL avoided us, and then only returned deposit after LBA, and then with deductions which were unreasonable. (it was stated clearly in the contract it was his cost and not ours). We then sent another LBA, nothing, so lodged claim. LL then returned the remaining deposit as part of his defense (after 5 months).

His argument is that the Judge cant rule 213(3)(a) protection or 213(3)( return of the deposit, so therefore cant enforce the 213(4) penalty clause, as follows:

"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."

Because it cant 'also' do something if it cant do the first...

In other words, the little rotter is trying to get away with not protecting our deposit, having a crack and taking money off us, hoping we dont have the time or money to go to court, and now we have gone to court, he's paid it back and claims that he isnt liable due to the wording of the act?

Any idea how we challenge this in court? I dont want to let him get away with this.

Also, Shylock, thanks for the advice you gave last time, was very helpful.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

@SPhilpott

Any idea how we challenge this in court? I dont want to let him get away with this.

You'd sue him under non-compliance with the TDS. Regardless of what the LL did subsequently he/she has acted outside of the law. Didn't you have a thread on this earlier. Perhaps you could post a reply there?

@i want a house

first link, interesting. It will tell you exactly what I said. Judges DON'T want to give this money to the tenant.

http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/mo...sit-muddle.html

http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/an...t-decision.html

What the judge doesn't want to do is irrelevant under the law. Looking at your links I would like to make the following observations:

In the top link the pertinent quote is

If a landlord can escape liability by simply handing over a cheque in the court waiting room, five minutes before the hearing, it makes the penalties look ridiculous.

We urgently need a test case to go to the Court of Appeal so we all know where we stand

Indeed. It is clear that the judges are not using the law correctly. The penalties are severe to ensure LL compliance. This is a new law, it will take time to bed in. In the meantime, claimants will need to guide the judge through the law and state their case clearly.

The story in the bottom link is that:

1. Tenants requested confirmation of TDS

2. LL realised they were not in compliance, placed deposit in TDS, supplied tenants with details

3. Tenants denied ever receiving said details, despite said details been given repeatedly.

4. Tenants then sued LL on grounds of non-compliance

5. LL asked court to strike out the case

6. Judge struck out the case on the grounds of the case having limited chance of success due to the LL protecting deposit in a scheme and therefore being in compliance.

The tenants made several errors here

1. They contacted the LL first. How ******ing stupid can you get? Contact the schemes, not the LL!

2. They lied about not receiving notification. This will not impress the judge

3. The tenants needed to point out the LL complied with the scheme after the 14 day limit and is therefore in violation. The judge seems to have ignored this. I don't have any legal training so I don't know whether this would be worth appealing in terms of chances of success (I think it would be, the judge's error is glaring)

Yes of course you might get a silly judge. If you start lying it doesn't help your case. The LL may recruit lawyers to fight you. It is not going to be easy. It will take time and effort. Going to court is stressful. My ongoing case with my ex-LL has been going on for months and has taken up at a minimum a working week of my time. I'd imagine it will be longer by the end. it will have involved, at a minimum, 2 court appearances. These are not jolly days out.

Anyone contemplating legal action needs to think through their actions carefully before doing anything. The tenants here acted naively and foolishly.

@Mods

There is no TDS sticky on this forum. This issue appears to come up again and again. I'd be happy to try to put something together if it is felt worthwhile