If he had put the deposit in a scheme you would have been notified when he made a claim for the deposit for damage and cleaning etc. So obviously not in a scheme. You are in a very good position. I would just file a claim for the deposit not being held in a scheme. He cannot deny this. I am assuming you have witnesses willing to testify and / or some sort of written evidence to show the deposit was paid and or that it has now been spent on the repairs and cleaning. If he has put any of that in writing you have a very good claim for return of your deposit. Now you have suggested that there was some cleaning to be done and some damage / unpaid bills too. (However, utility companies do not pursue the landlord for the tenants debt, so he will not be out of pocket for those. He should have informed these companies of your contact details, as it is the landlords responsibility to inform them when people arrive and leave, regardless if you have already done so). This may well be taken into consideration when the ruling is made when it goes to court. However if there was no inventory, then it will be for the landlord to prove the original condition of any damaged items, unpaid bills and cost of cleaning etc. To be honest he sounds like bit of a cowboy and hoping to just ignore your repeated requests for the return of your deposit with some proof of legitimate deductions. If you left in June last year I would file the claim now. You sound like you have already made contact numerous times to no avail, but maybe one more letter (LBA) sent recorded with 7 days to reply from date of letter, then go to the court on day 8. Don't wait any longer. The DPS was set up to protect people like you from landlords like this one, and for all it's good intentions is obviously not sufficient without following through with a court claim.

Many years ago they changed the law with regards to insurance cover. It used to be only whilst driving so you had to park the vehicle off the road if it no insurance, this was changed and means the person who has parked it is still responsible for it, on the road or off. However if you drive your own vehicle the insurance then reverts to cover you on your vehicle leaving the parked one without cover, so it could then be classed as uninsured, but then that is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.. My policy clearly states under driving other vehicles 'Third party cover only for the use of another vehicle in my possession ' - plus the normal gumpf of not belonging to or hired to and must be with the owners permission. As company cars or car pool vehicles and hire vehicles are only covered when actually in use, it questions how these will be affected too. Hire car companies are not going to be sorning and re-taxing every time a car is returned then hired out days later.

Hi Zaphod27, I think this actually allows the vehicle to stay taxed so long as a person driving it is insured, eg. using their own third party insurance to drive the vehicle. I will definitely be keeping a copy of this in my wallet. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/22 (1) 144A (5) Section of relevance below, as a vehicle being used by someone else is covered even when parked. 22 Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements (1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 144 insert— “144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements ....(5) Point (5) below clearly states; (5) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle. So, if a policy is in force by anyone using the vehicle the minimum conditions have been met under the current law, and no offence of keeping a taxed vehicle uninsured exists. Basically if I use my fathers car my insurance covers me to drive this vehicle on third party cover, therefore the vehicle is covered while being used by me, and no offence of the vehicle being uninsured exists. He can allow this vehicle to have no insurance of it's own as it's being used by me. If I subsequently park it on the road I am the one responsible for the vehicle under the current law. Therefore the minimum requirements of insurance are met, whilst in my use. This only applies if you have given permission to someone else to use your vehicle. I often drive other cars not insured by me and specifically make sure my policy covers me for this. I can see a lot of insurance documents being copied and sent to DVLA to prove the user at the time has the minimum insurance therefore the vehicle is covered, which will inundate them with heaps of paperwork. All I can say, is well done to the government for creating work for civil servants, at the same time as trying to criminalise the law abiding citizens. 144B Exceptions to section 144A offence Clearly states it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all doubt; (9) A person accused of an offence under section 144A of this Act is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception; but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply. I have spent weeks reading through all this and all the changes, and as far as I can tell all that has been done is intended to confuse the issue of whether a car is insured. I hope this helps and maybe someone else in working in law can clarify this if they have time.

By my understanding of the DPS once you file a claim for the non protection of the deposit it covers the whole amount of deposit and three times this amount to be paid to you upon winning the case. It is already in your favour as the deposit was not protected and cannot be done so now as you have left the property (I assume). You will receive the amount deducted and further unless proof of damage or reasonable cost to replace items that were in the contract can be proved. You would do better to start your own thread and people on here will do their best to help. Remember - All advice is in best interest but not considered legal advice. You need to supply a bit more info to be able to understand your situation fully to get more feedback. Good luck.

Can't see this is legal even. What if the vehicle is under foreign insurance? It is still insured and quite legal. If someone else has insurance to drive it then again the vehicle is covered by the minimum legal requirements. I see this as a big con and will not stop the problems that should be addressed. Just another tax on the public for cash strapped government. Basic third party insurance and road tax could be on fuel. That way if you buy fuel you have road tax (VED) and third party cover. If people want fully comp then they have the option to pay for this. Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

Hi Louise 123, Your agreement is for both to adhere to, so yes. Have you tried writing to the agent and pointing this out? I'm sure they will come up with a reason as to why it took so long to send you the report though. If the deposit was held properly in a scheme then you can contact them. Also start your own thread then you will get more response to your problem. We need more details so expect questions and do your best to answer. Good luck.

Some sort of contract is definitely right. Your solicitor should have advised you of costs such as this and given you a copy of the lease with the terms and conditions. It seems a bit odd that you own the house freehold but the garage is leasehold. Make sure they actually have a right to charge you anything as they will send out demands even when they are not supposed to and many people just pay up without checking it thoroughly. Try to find out who the freeholder of the garage is if you want to obtain the freehold and then be rid of Solitaire. By the way if the freeholder is Freehold Managers Plc or Freehold Managers (Nominees) Ltd, then it's part of the Solitaire. They won't want to sell the freehold as it's a money maker for them, but you will be able to do a RTM (Right To Manage) to remove them from service charges. Not sure what your circumstances are or if this is a communal area and garage and shared with other residents. If so you need 51% or more to want RTM and then serve notice on Solitaire. You need to set this up properly but there are plenty of threads with helpful advice. Also some other management companies are aware of there tactics and willing to help you (for a fee) but far more honest too. Make a complaint directly to your solicitor if you are sure you were not advised of this and you can contact the Law Society too. Good luck.

Hi tomwm. In my opinion it would be worth avoiding anything to do with Solitaire or their parent company. I still have an ongoing dispute with them and trying to remove them from the maintenance but Estates & Management are the ground rent collectors, again part of the Consensus group that are Peverel/Solitaire, and each company making things as difficult as possible. I now only send letters and payment to them by signed for delivery. Despite their constant demands for money, when they get sent only what is owed they don't bank it then try to say it was not sent. However once informed that it was signed for they quickly bank the cheque but still add late charges or admin fees. I am currently still waiting for a reply to my last letter sent in August 2010. If you can, bail out now. And do any research you can yourself into any property management company as well as your solicitor before buying. Also try asking a few residents in the same area what the management company are like too. It's a sad situation for the current lease owners who are going to find selling their properties more difficult as the actions of this company get wider internet publication. I know I would have stayed well clear and will avoid any further properties where their name pops up on any documents.

The amounts are very convenient as it comes to £200 exactly but the list shows what I would imagine to take more than one hour to do. Give the cleaning company a call and ask for a breakdown & how many cleaners attended. Inform them that they may be called to court to explain the invoice. Any discrepancies in what has actually been done needing to be explained in the small claims might very well see a refund coming soon. I can see a need for some dusting after 8 days but that is not down to you. Dust will settle over a period of 8 days, but that means they never checked it when you left. Was it in the contract terms about admin charges - £58.00 - being charged? As I recall all charges must be declared in the terms that are being followed by the letting agent. If they have had the letters then it looks like it will be a trip to the small claims next.

Send them a letter before action asking for a full refund. State you have witnesses to verify the flat was clean and tidy. Don't worry about the photo's or lack of. Give them two weeks to refund you in full. Also ask them for an exact copy of the cleaners invoice so you can question the cleaners directly as to what was cleaned. I do not believe they have paid that much for one hours general cleaning either. This seems like another one of those scams just to make money from your deposit, as a reputable firm would have been there on the day you left to check this in your presence allowing you to verify any problems. If you are serious about getting the money back be prepared to take action via the small claims court. Three witnesses would be very good for you especially as no one from the letting company bothered to go and check as you left or responded with details of their investigation. They want you to just go away so they can ignore it all.

a.tenant1987 If you have already over paid then just pay the difference for this month. If you have already paid this month too then you entitled to it back immediately and the damage deposit when you leave (providing you have not broken anything). You really should have started your own thread for more responses and help.

Get a copy of the report from the letting agency stating it was fine. If it was not in the contract then you cannot be charged for something - this would be equivalent to betterment - not replacing broken or missing items. First write demanding back any money outstanding and include details of what is not covered under the agreement. Be prepared to take the landlord to court and include a letter before action.Tell them you have pictures of the day you left showing the condition, but get a copy of any report from the letting agency first, they should be OK with that from what you have put. Was it three separate agreements or just one signed by all three? Any legitimate charges are to split three ways if the same agreement was for all three.

As my understanding of the TDS non compliance in a word "Yes". You only claim the outstanding amount owed, court fees (if applicable) & deposit X 3. 2100 + 132 + court fee

I am a landlord and this is my opinion of the rules with regard to TDS. As far as I am aware once the tenancy has ended the landlord cannot then protect the deposit in a scheme. All must be returned to you or you can make a claim. This should be for the amount still owing and 3x deposit. In fact the landlord should never had held your deposit unprotected. I would put this in writing to the landlord as a letter before action giving 'X' number of days for full return of amount still outstanding or you will take legal action to claim this amount plus 3x deposit as allowed by failing to comply to TDS. Preferably send it recorded delivery or get a witness to observe you hand to the landlord in person. With some luck it will be returned, but be prepared to use the courts. Keep any and all documents you have as evidence including emails. If he/she pays your deposit back now, you will not be able to get the 3x penalty because there will no longer be "a person who it appears to the court is holding the deposit or any part of." The return now would be a good result for you without the need for a court claim. Good luck and keep reading through the threads, there is a lot of useful information and letter templates to help you. I hope this helps.

Hi PeteK, You have posted in your thread as well - Deduction from deposit-deposit not protected - I have replied to you there.