Eos Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Does anyone have a view on which is a better route for a tenant who wants their deposit back? I read somewhere that you can't do both, so soon I will have to choose. Which would be more off-putting for the LA and LL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 think you have to use the TDS for deposit issues. small claims is for issues that don't pertain to the deposit and if I guess,you're not happy with the TDS resolution. My understanding was that you could choose. If you didn't fancy the TDS, you could go straight to the small claims court or if you did not like the non binding result of the TDS, you would be free to go to the binding small claims court. Someone more knowledgeable will confirm one way or the other i'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 On 'landlord' forums, the ADR process is anecdotally believed to favour the tenant - due to the standard of proof required from the landlord being so high. However, EITHER side can decline arbitration, in which case the tenant would have to use the court system to claim their deposit back. It is technically possible to use the courts if you don't like the arbitration result, but you can expect the judge to be at least swayed by the ADR decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 On 'landlord' forums, the ADR process is anecdotally believed to favour the tenant - due to the standard of proof required from the landlord being so high. Perhaps there's another good reason. Namely, the historic expectation that landlords routinely abuse the system in their own favour. If it is in fact completely neutral, that would feel like favouring the tenant, simply due to the contrast. I expect a lot of current-generation BTL landlords had their expectations set when they were screwed as tenants in a much harsher environment for renters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 The deposit scheme arbitration process is much quicker than a fast track claim through the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 The deposit scheme arbitration process is much quicker than a fast track claim through the courts. Very possibly true, but a sub £5k deposit claim is unlikely to be allocated to the fast track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Perhaps there's another good reason. Namely, the historic expectation that landlords routinely abuse the system in their own favour. If it is in fact completely neutral, that would feel like favouring the tenant, simply due to the contrast. I expect a lot of current-generation BTL landlords had their expectations set when they were screwed as tenants in a much harsher environment for renters. So how do you explain the fact that the same landlords feel that the court service is unbiased? Perhaps the courts are really biased in favour of the landlord - after all, most judges are ex solicitors, therefore a huge majority of them will be financially sound and potential landlords themselves. You know Porca, I think we may have discovered a conspiracy theory here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Very possibly true, but a sub £5k deposit claim is unlikely to be allocated to the fast track. Even the small claims track can take several months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eos Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 so small claims court (from a tenants point of view) has the following disadvantages:- 1. it takes longer 2. it costs more 3. the tenant is less likely to win and the following advantages:- n/a ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) On 'landlord' forums, the ADR process is anecdotally believed to favour the tenant - due to the standard of proof required from the landlord being so high. However, EITHER side can decline arbitration, in which case the tenant would have to use the court system to claim their deposit back. . (OK I'll try that again.) This is not entirely correct. TDS will only keep the deposit pending the outcome of a court case if they have received official notification from the LL that they have started proceedings. They won't keep it just because the LL declines arbitration. Under no circumstances will the tenant have to instigate court proceedings for the return of their deposit. Edited August 29, 2011 by tim123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Under no circumstances will the tenant have to instigate court proceedings for the return of their deposit. If LL declines TDS arbitration, how is the tenant to recover their deposit without relying on the courts? Is there a 'third way'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 If LL declines TDS arbitration, how is the tenant to recover their deposit without relying on the courts? Is there a 'third way'? The point is the LL can't do this. According to the TDS FAQ, he either accepts the arbitration or takes court action. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 The point is the LL can't do this. According to the TDS FAQ, he either accepts the arbitration or takes court action. tim Can you provide a link, because when I checked the TDS FAQ page I found... The parties may go to court if they prefer. TDS can only deal with a dispute if both the tenant and the landlord agree that they want us to do so (except where the landlord refuses to make any decision, in which case we will deal with the dispute if it is referred to us and not the Court). http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions.html# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Landlord Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I would add that in the case of a dispute, the landlord usually has no reason to go to court because he already holds the deposit. It is the TENANT who would be most likely to sue (for the return of their deposit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 If LL declines TDS arbitration, how is the tenant to recover their deposit without relying on the courts? Is there a 'third way'? Yes, but you need to know the right sort of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I would add that in the case of a dispute, the landlord usually has no reason to go to court because he already holds the deposit. It is the TENANT who would be most likely to sue (for the return of their deposit). No, that's not how TDS works. If T and LL can't come to an agreement T raises a dispute with TDS. If LL does't then either: agree to arbitration or show absolute proof of starting court action, TDS will return the deposit to T. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Can you provide a link, because when I checked the TDS FAQ page I found... http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions.html# Saying that they won't arbitrate if both parties don't agree, is NOT the same as saying that they will continue to unilaterally keep the deposit for the benefit of the LL if both parties don't agree to arbitrate. It specifically said (somewhere in there), that they would only do this if LL provided evidence of starting court action. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.