Tds Non Compliance Action

[groupoffour]

Dear members,

Having read many posts on this and similar forums I in agreement with and on the behalf of my 3 ex-housemates issued a county court claim against our landlord for non protection of our deposit of £1000 (shared between four tenants) in the tenancy deposit scheme (TDS) for a short hold tenancy which was signed on October 28th 2007 and ran from November 2007 to May 2008.

If I can explain briefly the circumstances of our entering the property and

signing the tenancy agreement/contract:

The original tenant moved in in early summer 2007 but did not sign our joint tenancy agreement until the end of October 2008. The other 3 tenants who jointly signed that contract moved in closer to the signing date and up until that point we lived there for varying amounts of time on a kind of ‘rolling’ basis, paying rent and having paid our deposits to the respective outgoing tenants of our respective bedrooms who in exchange handed us the keys. The final of these outgoing tenants was present when the deposits that the letting agent (and landlord/owner of the property) were signed over from his (and one other person) to our names as stated in our new, joint short hold tenancy agreement.

Some way into our tenancy I was informed by the office lady that our deposit had been transferred and the landlord (LL) had not received it in cash at the time of signing and therefore the deposit would not be protected in the TDS because the original deposits were received prior to its coming into being (which I do not now thing is even true).

Upon exiting the property the LL informed us (via his office lady) that he would be withholding just under half of the deposit on the basis that he claimed we had left the property late, and the need for a professional clean.

Having issued several letters before court to request repayment or evidence as to why the deposit was being withheld I eventually filed on 31st July 2008 via MONEYCLAIM ONLINE a case claiming £4100 with the description “Deposit owed by Landlord” worded as follows:

On Oct 26th 2007, the Claimant and fellow tenants, jointly signed a new assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the defendant’s agency, xxx, for xxx from Nov.1st 2007.

A deposit of £1000 was transferred from the previous tenants to us. Subsequent dispute determined the landlord did not comply with the initial requirements of section 214(1)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 stating that deposits must be paid into a tenancy deposit scheme (section 213(1) of the Housing Act 2004) within 14 days of the Defendant's receipt of the deposit (section 213(3) of the Housing Act 2004). We ask that the court make an order:

1. That the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit do repay it to the Claimant, in accordance with section 214(3) of the Housing Act 2004. 2. That the Defendant pay the Claimant, within 14 days of making of the order, a sum of money equal to 3 times the amount of the deposit, in accordance with section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004.

This was initially met with a defence which stated our action would be partially defended but then subsequently changed to dispute the whole amount claimed in addition to a counterclaim for further damages to property and furniture and rent arrears which had been previously threatened in telephone communications (which I recorded) amounting to £2500. The case was then transferred to the local court for continuation with a 10th December 2008 deadline for witnesses and evidence and the hearing on 8th January 2009.

We have recently learned that just days prior to filing this defence and counterclaim, the LL belatedly registered our deposit with Tenancy Deposit Solutions (now trading as mydeposits) on 3rd September 2008 despite our leaving the property 3 months previous. We have been advised by mydeposits that our deposit has been inserted in “an insurance based protection scheme” whereby mydeposits do not hold onto the deposit amount, this remains with the landlord.

Our queries and concerns are as follows:

1 Given that we have only today found out that our deposit was belatedly installed in a scheme, should we apply for the release of the deposit that way or continue to pursue our deposit as well as the penalty for non-compliance?

2 Also as regards the timing of our case, it will be heard long after the deposit should have been put into TDS and long after we have vacated the property. But the subsequent dispute over the deposit stems from the fact no TDS was used only until our TDS-non compliance case was filed. Is this fact, that tenancy has ended, likely to count against us in the judge’s ruling?

The LL’s defence is premised on the fact that as tenants our deposits were transferred from the previous tenants and no new cash deposit was received from the new tenants. Despite this the LL acknowledges he subsequently put the deposit into a protection scheme but illegitimately claims we were are aware of this and of this they have proof.

Is this subsequent protection of the deposit likely to count against our action?

3 Given that the counterclaim made by the LL is no more than an attempt to intimidate us out of pursuing our TDS non-compliance case, could it be found to be illegal on those grounds?

Or would it be merely dismissed? Are there precedents for illegality of counterclaims than anyone knows of?

In the small chance that the (illegitimate) counterclaim for damages and unpaid rent is upheld how would this affect our TDS non-compliance action?

To what degree do such counterclaims have to have bearing on original action/claims?

These counterclaims for damages are in spite of there being no inventory or statement of condition co-signed by LL and tenants. How might these claims stand up in front of a judge without evidence?

4 In defending ourselves against the counterclaim for damages and cleaning, would it be wise to try to gather witnesses to testify the property was not in a clean condition (though rentable as it was eventually left) and damages were already present?

5 How would a four person jointly signed tenancy/contract and a collective deposit be affected by the fact one of the co-signers is willing and may well deal with the LL and claim some of the collective deposit prior to our TDS non-compliance small claim action being heard?

The LL has made great efforts to try to reach individual tenants at various times with the purpose of splitting up our group and making various offers to all of us at various times.

6 To what degree should we try to describe the above manipulation, lies, dirty tricks, procrastination, fabrication, threats and intimidation (of added damages being withheld), emotional pressure on tenants that the LL has engaged in? In our opinion he has repeatedly flagrantly flouted the law and rules on doing business but should we try to demonstrate this to the judge or concentrate on less personal matters?

The counterclaim for additional withholding of money to cover other damages unless we agreed to the initial withholdings was threatened various similar threats and deadlines were made after we disputed them and requested evidence of the professional clean, damages and unpaid rent. These have since appeared in the counterclaim. Indeed we believe the professional clean was fabricated by the LL, so to what degree and how might we present this belief?

7 The initial claim we registered online was for £4100: deposit plus 3 times it plus £100 costs. However since then we have realized that other costs have been involved and we might also have claimed interest on the £4100 or maybe just the £1000 deposit. Would it now be too late or might it appear unseemly to claim these amounts as well?

Apologies for the length of this but I have tried to cover everything so no added questions or amendments are needed.

Sincere thanks in advance for any time and advice offered.

[renterbob]

Snip

I have no specific advice but would dearly love to know the outcome, good luck, stick to your guns and hopefully you will get good advice here.

If not, I'll link it to a main board post, as this could be very enlightening for all renters on HPC.

[asquithea]

Waaay too long, and I see you pasted this over at LLZ, too.

Skim-reading, I think you have a pretty weak case for the 3x penalty, because:

1) It's not clear that the deposit was received after the legislation took effect

2) The deposit has subsequently been protected.

The reality is that much more straightforward claims have been rejected by the courts on the basis of point (2) alone, so you've probably already got most of the benefit you'll see from the legislation by forcing the deposit into a recognised scheme.

Secondly, we're only getting your side of the story. You mentioned lots of stuff without any detail, including rent arrears and leaving the property late. From what you've not said, the LL's attitude could be quite reasonable. We simply can't tell whether you have a genuine grievance, whether you're simply motivated by this (probably illusory) penalty pay-out, or something in between.

Assume that the penalty will not be awarded, and take a hard look at your case. If the remainder simply boils down to an inventory and cleanliness dispute, I'd be very tempted to drop the case and take it to arbitration with the deposit scheme.

Edited November 6, 2008 by asquithea

[renterbob]

Waaay too long, and I see you pasted this over at LLZ, too.

Skim-reading, I think you have a pretty weak case for the 3x penalty, because:

1) It's not clear that the deposit was received after the legislation took effect

2) The deposit has subsequently been protected.

The reality is that much more straightforward claims have been rejected by the courts on the basis of point (2) alone, so you've probably already got most of the benefit you'll see from the legislation by forcing the deposit into a recognised scheme.

Secondly, we're only getting your side of the story. You mentioned lots of stuff without any detail, including rent arrears and leaving the property late. From what you've not said, the LL's attitude could be quite reasonable. We simply can't tell whether you have a genuine grievance, whether you're simply motivated by this (probably illusory) penalty pay-out, or something in between.

Assume that the penalty will not be awarded, and take a hard look at your case. If the remainder simply boils down to an inventory and cleanliness dispute, I'd be very tempted to drop the case and take it to arbitration with the deposit scheme.

Lets get this clear,

The LL has 14 days to register the deposit AFTER it is given to him.

After that, and the penalty stands.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=93348

Stop being stupid and giving silly advice EA

[sinksunksank]

I've asked the TDS people to confirm when was my deposit paid into the scheme by the LA as I've only received the certificate in March, 3 months after our contract was renewed. I'm not sure whether it's the LA who failed to secure the same within 14 days or just forgot to forward a copy of the certificate to us. It seems strange that the certificate itself does not carry any date.

[Planner]

Lets get this clear,

The LL has 14 days to register the deposit AFTER it is given to him.

After that, and the penalty stands.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=93348

Stop being stupid and giving silly advice EA

Yes I agree, lets get this clear.

The two things that a tenant can take a LL/Agent to court for concerning none TDS compliance are;

1) The Depsoit has not been protected (before the case is heard)

2) The prescribed information hasnt been given to the tenant (before the case is heard)

While these two things should be done within 14 days of recipt of a deposit, if its done later, THIS IS NOT a reason that a court claim can be made. The Act is quite clear on this - breaking the 14 day rule is not a reason for starting a claim and any who raise a claim based on this 'infringement' alone will fail.

Im afraid your advice in this thread and in your link is incorrect Renterbob.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Planner

[Te Mata]

Yes I agree, lets get this clear.

The two things that a tenant can take a LL/Agent to court for concerning none TDS compliance are;

1) The Depsoit has not been protected (before the case is heard)

2) The prescribed information hasnt been given to the tenant (before the case is heard)

While these two things should be done within 14 days of recipt of a deposit, if its done later, THIS IS NOT a reason that a court claim can be made. The Act is quite clear on this - breaking the 14 day rule is not a reason for starting a claim and any who raise a claim based on this 'infringement' alone will fail.

Im afraid your advice in this thread and in your link is incorrect Renterbob.

So what this really means is that LLs are only compelled to put the deposit in a scheme once the tenant initiates court action. So long as deposit is protected before it is heard, all is OK?

I'm not disputing that this is what is happening in practice, but that's just dumb, a failure of the legislation. There should be some consequence for LL's who do not do this on time (Not 3 times deposit, far too draconian).

It's saying to only bother with TDS is you get caught out.

[Planner]

So what this really means is that LLs are only compelled to put the deposit in a scheme once the tenant initiates court action. So long as deposit is protected before it is heard, all is OK?

I'm not disputing that this is what is happening in practice, but that's just dumb, a failure of the legislation. There should be some consequence for LL's who do not do this on time (Not 3 times deposit, far too draconian).

It's saying to only bother with TDS is you get caught out.

I agree, the '14 day rule' or probably a '28 day rule' should have been a further reason to begin court proceedings, but unfortunatley it isnt.

Its worth bearing in mind that the x3 compensation is only part of the 'penalties', the other being that no section 21 can be issued, which may catch some landlords out.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Planner

[Te Mata]

I agree, the '14 day rule' or probably a '28 day rule' should have been a further reason to begin court proceedings, but unfortunatley it isnt.

Its worth bearing in mind that the x3 compensation is only part of the 'penalties', the other being that no section 21 can be issued, which may catch some landlords out.

Ah yes, true.

I still think there should be some nominal fine for late lodgement... an automatic 100 quid or so, just to say "get it done".

[renterbob]

Yes I agree, lets get this clear.

The two things that a tenant can take a LL/Agent to court for concerning none TDS compliance are;

1) The Depsoit has not been protected (before the case is heard)

2) The prescribed information hasnt been given to the tenant (before the case is heard)

While these two things should be done within 14 days of recipt of a deposit, if its done later, THIS IS NOT a reason that a court claim can be made. The Act is quite clear on this - breaking the 14 day rule is not a reason for starting a claim and any who raise a claim based on this 'infringement' alone will fail.

Im afraid your advice in this thread and in your link is incorrect Renterbob.

Evidence? Your post is simply untrue.

More EA/LL rubbish.

The Law is the Law.

EA/LL are not above The Law.

The gov.uk link is correct, it is the official stance.

[Planner]

Evidence? Your post is simply untrue.

More EA/LL rubbish.

The Law is the Law.

EA/LL are not above The Law.

The gov.uk link is correct, it is the official stance.

Evidence, of course. Its called the Housing Act 2004. Section 214 (1) sets out the two instances in which you may make an application to the County Court;

(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or

( that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

So there you have it, the two instances as laid out by the act of when the a claim can be made, neither of which allow the breaking of the '14 day rule' to be a reason to make a claim.

Im glad you agree that the law is the law. As we can see from above, it certainly is.

I quite agree that the directgov link is correct, unfortunatley your interpretation of it isnt. No where does the link (or the act) say that you can take your LL/LA to court is the deposit isnt protected in 14 days. While the act says it should be protected in 14 days, there is no redress through the courts if it is protected at a later date, hence the discussion myself and WayneL had above, saying that this is a flaw in the legislation that is in need of correcting.

You are not helping renters by saying that they can submit a claim to the County Court when the deposit has subsequently been protected and the prescribed information sent after the 14 day peiod has expired, you are actually advising them to waste £150 on a unwinable claim.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Planner

[renterbob]

Evidence, of course. Its called the Housing Act 2004. Section 214 (1) sets out the two instances in which you may make an application to the County Court;

(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or

( that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

So there you have it, the two instances as laid out by the act of when the a claim can be made, neither of which allow the breaking of the '14 day rule' to be a reason to make a claim.

Im glad you agree that the law is the law. As we can see from above, it certainly is.

I quite agree that the directgov link is correct, unfortunatley your interpretation of it isnt. No where does the link (or the act) say that you can take your LL/LA to court is the deposit isnt protected in 14 days. While the act says it should be protected in 14 days, there is no redress through the courts if it is protected at a later date, hence the discussion myself and WayneL had above, saying that this is a flaw in the legislation that is in need of correcting.

You are not helping renters by saying that they can submit a claim to the County Court when the deposit has subsequently been protected and the prescribed information sent after the 14 day peiod has expired, you are actually advising them to waste £150 on a unwinable claim.

B0LL0cks!

Read the site again, then read it again.

Then , i fear, you will have to read it again and and again before it gets in your skull.

You may wish it not so, but that won't change the law.

It came in last year, not 2004 or 1891.

LAST YEAR.

You must be a solicitor!

From the site you read:

How does it work?

Start of a new tenancy

At the beginning of a new tenancy agreement, pay your deposit to your landlord or agent as usual.

Within 14 days

Within 14 days, the landlord or agent is required to give you details about how your deposit is protected including:

the contact details of the tenancy deposit scheme

the contact details of the landlord or agent

how to apply for the release of the deposit

information explaining the purpose of the deposit

what to do if there is a dispute about the deposit

........

What if your landlord isn’t protecting your deposit?

You can apply to your local county court. ..... If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Edited November 8, 2008 by renterbob

[Planner]

B0LL0cks!

Read the site again, then read it again.

Then , i fear, you will have to read it again and and again before it gets in your skull.

You may wish it not so, but that won't change the law.

It came in last year, not 2004 or 1891.

LAST YEAR.

You must be a solicitor!

From the site you read:

Renterbob, do you actually know anything about TDS?

It was brought in last year, thats quite correct, however the piece of legislation that brought it in was published in 2004 - the Hosuing Act 2004, but not implimented until last year.

I suggest you need to read the legislation and then read it again. There are three 'things' that a LL/LA must do on recipt of a deposit, but only two of these are enforcable by the tenant;

1) the deposit must be protected

2) the prescribed information must be sent to the tenant

3) this must all be done within 14 days.

If the deposit isnt protected (1)or the prescribed information not supplied (2), then the tenant may take the landlord to court. If the deposit is subsequently protected (3) after 14 days but before the court hearing, then the law gives the court no power to award the x3 penalty. In deed your own words show this (i have reduced the size of the lettering!);

What if your landlord isn’t protecting your deposit?

You can apply to your local county court. ..... If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Nothing about 14 days in there I am affraid.

Your wrong renterbob, and there is nothing more to it. Neither the directgov site or the law says you can sue for the 14 day rule being broken if the deposit is subsequently protected and the prescribed information supplied.

[renterbob]

Renterbob, do you actually know anything about TDS?

It was brought in last year, thats quite correct, however the piece of legislation that brought it in was published in 2004 - the Hosuing Act 2004, but not implimented until last year.

I suggest you need to read the legislation and then read it again. There are three 'things' that a LL/LA must do on recipt of a deposit, but only two of these are enforcable by the tenant;

1) the deposit must be protected

2) the prescribed information must be sent to the tenant

3) this must all be done within 14 days.

If the deposit isnt protected (1)or the prescribed information not supplied (2), then the tenant may take the landlord to court. If the deposit is subsequently protected (3) after 14 days but before the court hearing, then the law gives the court no power to award the x3 penalty. In deed your own words show this (i have reduced the size of the lettering!);

What if your landlord isn’t protecting your deposit?

You can apply to your local county court. ..... If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Nothing about 14 days in there I am affraid.

Your wrong renterbob, and there is nothing more to it. Neither the directgov site or the law says you can sue for the 14 day rule being broken if the deposit is subsequently protected and the prescribed information supplied.

Planner, I am beginning to think you're taking the p*** here.

From the site:

Within 14 days, the landlord or agent is required to give you details about how your deposit is protected

What if your landlord isn’t protecting your deposit?

If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Your interpretation is wishful thinking

If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Does not mean the LL can protect the deposit the day before court and then get off.

I could rob a bank, then get caught, earn interest for year, then go to court and give all the money back the day before the court hearing and get off free? Don't be stupid Planner!

Anyone with half a brain will get 3X deposit and loss of earnings when dealing with a judge in such circumstances.

Edited November 8, 2008 by renterbob

[Matt Henson]

Planner, I am beginning to think you're taking the p*** here.

From the site:

Sorry Bob, again you are wrong and Planner is right, take this example.

You don 't believe your LL have registered your deposit, unilaterally you take court action to claim the 3x, the LL gets his summons and imediately registers your deposit (or at leats within 2 weeks) because this is his first notification of your request for the details. He sends you the details and then some time later you appear in court and the Judge asks the LL, have you protected the deposit, the answer is yes... Then he asked LL, did he provide the details of the scheme within 14 days of the your request, the answer is yes.

The Judge is happy, awards LL's legal costs to you and you walk away about £300 worse off.

The Law is specific in saying the the deposit must be registered within 14 days of it being paid, but that only where non payment at the time of a court hearing can the 3x penalty be awarded.

The whole legislation was ONLY designed to take the huge volume of tenant deposit cases out of the legal system. The 14 day/3x rule is merely a stick the tenant can use to ensure their deposit is safe, the idea being it never gets to court, hence why non-payment does not imediately warrant a case

protects the goverment not us

[renterbob]

Sorry Bob, again you are wrong and Planner is right, take this example.

You don 't believe your LL have registered your deposit, unilaterally you take court action to claim the 3x, the LL gets his summons and imediately registers your deposit (or at leats within 2 weeks) because this is his first notification of your request for the details. He sends you the details and then some time later you appear in court and the Judge asks the LL, have you protected the deposit, the answer is yes... Then he asked LL, did he provide the details of the scheme within 14 days of the your request, the answer is yes.

snip

Again? Eh, what? Perhaps you are mistaking me for you on a number of topics here Matt.

You really are thinking like a LL Matt, and are not doing yourself any favours here.

Aha, but it may not be the 'first' notification. And 'sometime later' is as vague as I've heard here.

You are asking the wrong questions.

The judge is obliged to ask 'Did you protect the deposit within 14 days of it being given to you, as the LAW demands'?

'No, sir'.

The ruling you propose may then vary.

In fact, it WILL vary, an the LL will get the shafting deserved for trying to screw over the tenant.

[Planner]

Again? Eh, what? Perhaps you are mistaking me for you on a number of topics here Matt.

You really are thinking like a LL Matt, and are not doing yourself any favours here.

Aha, but it may not be the 'first' notification. And 'sometime later' is as vague as I've heard here.

You are asking the wrong questions.

The judge is obliged to ask 'Did you protect the deposit within 14 days of it being given to you, as the LAW demands'?

'No, sir'.

The ruling you propose may then vary.

In fact, it WILL vary, an the LL will get the shafting deserved for trying to screw over the tenant.

Affraid the judge isnt obliged to ask 'Did you protect the deposit within 14 days of it being given to you, as the LAW demands'

Hes obliged to ask just what the act says hes obliged to ask which is - Is the deposit protected and has the prescribed information been sent to the tenant. Nothing about 14 days Im affraid old bean.

Maybe renterbob works for the county court and hes trying to drum up doomed to failure claims at £150 a pop to hit the courts targets? - although I doubt it as I should imagine working for the court would require at least a basic grasp of statute and common law in this country.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Planner

[renterbob]

Affraid the judge isnt obliged to ask 'Did you protect the deposit within 14 days of it being given to you, as the LAW demands'

Hes obliged to ask just what the act says hes obliged to ask which is - Is the deposit protected and has the prescribed information been sent to the tenant. Nothing about 14 days Im affraid old bean.

Maybe renterbob works for the county court and hes trying to drum up doomed to failure claims at £150 a pop to hit the courts targets? - although I doubt it as I should imagine working for the court would require at least a basic grasp of statute and common law in this country.

Planner, is this your stupid week?

14 days is indeed mentioned if you'd read anything to do with the TDS.

To deny that makes it clear t al you're living in cloud cuckoo-land.

[Planner]

Planner, is this your stupid week?

14 days is indeed mentioned if you'd read anything to do with the TDS.

To deny that makes it clear t al you're living in cloud cuckoo-land.

I quite agree 14 days is mentioned i.e. the deposit should be protected and the prescrbed information given within 14 days of deposit recipt. My point is if this 14 days is missed and the deposit protected late and the prescribed information given late, theres nothing a renter can do about it under the law as missing the 14 days deadline is not one of the reasons given in the act for raising a claim at county court.

[renterbob]

I quite agree 14 days is mentioned i.e. the deposit should be protected and the prescrbed information given within 14 days of deposit recipt. My point is if this 14 days is missed and the deposit protected late and the prescribed information given late, theres nothing a renter can do about it under the law as missing the 14 days deadline is not one of the reasons given in the act for raising a claim at county court.

Are you serious?

You are basing this off one case where the deposit WAS protected and should have never went to court!

When judges realise the 14 day rule, tenants will win, hands down, everytime. You know this, I know this.

Get real

You won't like reading this.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...omes-links.html

[Matt Henson]

Are you serious?

You are basing this off one case where the deposit WAS protected and should have never went to court!

When judges realise the 14 day rule, tenants will win, hands down, everytime. You know this, I know this.

Get real

You won't like reading this.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...omes-links.html

Bob you should observe that Planner was a major contributor to the links in that blog supporting the tenants case, again you didn't bother to read the detail. Many of these cases were won because the LL did not protect the deposit at all.

[renterbob]

Bob you should observe that Planner was a major contributor to the links in that blog supporting the tenants case, again you didn't bother to read the detail. Many of these cases were won because the LL did not protect the deposit at all.

I did read it, and he was right in those instances, but not this one.

He knows it too.

His recent posts amount to:

A silly renter took the LL to court even though the deposit was in a TDS within 14 days = renters should shut up and be quiet.

OR

A judge is a bit drunk one day, doesn't have a clue about the 14 day rule and the sly LL puts deposit in TDS a day before the court hearing, judge says 'the deposit is protected, no win' = all judges will award against the tenant if the LL puts the depost in the TDS a day before the hearing'

B0ll0cks!

You both know that.

[Planner]

I did read it, and he was right in those instances, but not this one.

He knows it too.

His recent posts amount to:

OR

B0ll0cks!

You both know that.

No renterbob, your still wrong. I have provided extensive and acurate advice to anyone with TDS claims. Many renters on the Consumer Action Group Site and LLzone site have taken there cases to court and won based on the suggested claim wording and advice that I and others have posted on this site and the above two. You oin the otherhabd have done nothing as far as I can see to ever help a renter with a TDS claim, or you seem to do is shout and disagree with correct advice that has been given by your betters. If you really want to help renters like the rest of us, why dont you go hand have a read up about TDS and basic landlord/tenant law so you can actually help?

Once again, you cant make a TDS court claim based on the 14 day rule being missed alone, one of the other elements i.e. deposit not protected or prescribed information given, needs to be present as well.

If you have any questions about TDS or tenant/renter law why no PM myself or Matt before you post if you are unsure of the answer? that way correct advice can be given. These are substanstial amounts of money and peoples homes on the line, and the questions shouldnt be treated with the 'off the top of your head' and contemptous answers you give.

You have done the most to damage the cause of renters on this site than all those imaginary Landlord/Letting Agent/VI posters combined.

[renterbob]

Once again, you cant make a TDS court claim based on the 14 day rule being missed alone, one of the other elements i.e. deposit not protected or prescribed information given, needs to be present as well.

This is incorrect, one can, many have and it is fact that most have been successful.

Of course, taking a LL to court when they have actually put the deposit in the TDS, is not smart and the tenant will lose.

Taking the LL to court for not putting the deposit into a TDS within 14 days of giving the money over is a CERTAIN win win for tenants.

[Matt Henson]

This is incorrect, one can, many have and it is fact that most have been successful.

Of course, taking a LL to court when they have actually put the deposit in the TDS, is not smart and the tenant will lose.

Taking the LL to court for not putting the deposit into a TDS within 14 days of giving the money over is a CERTAIN win win for tenants.

Big Error... nothing is ever CERTAIN in court... ever and that is where you and your advice/knowldge fall over, a judge makes his judgement based on what you say and what the defendant says. If you make and error of misrepresent the facts you are in trouble.

Think of a judge having a glass of water half empty when you walk in, your job is to fill the glass, some is done with politeness but most in respresenting the facts based on the understanding of the law. If your facts are wrong or do not represent the law, the glass starts to empty and you start to lose. You either need to work out how to fill it again or watch the OP pour the rest of the floor.

Being a **** sure, I know the facts because I do type is quickly going to leave you begging for water