Tenancy Deposit Protection: A Guide.

[ShortlyTdwarf]

zzzzz

[Planner]

An excellent post, it should prove very useful in the FUTURE. But I’m not convinced it’s the right approach at the moment. I know you don’t want posts on here, but I think there are some quite fundamental errors that need an open discussion.

First of all, have you cut and pasted it from somewhere? If so could we have the source? – if its landlord law or some other subscription service (I have a feeling it is) then a) I don’t think its should be cut and pasted on here and b) Im not convinced its correct.

My main issues with it are as follows;

- Some very knowledgeable and long serving posters on here are yet to be convinced that the N1 claim route is in deed the correct route. They, and myself strongly believe and have some quite extensive discussions concerning this issue. The other alternative to the N1 claim form is the N208 (part 8 procedure). This claim form seems infinitely more suited to TDS claims. Could you tell us why that this initial approach that has been proposed by us (and a number of other forums) is incorrect and N1 is the correct process?

- If your answer is "I know of a number of successful TDS claims using N1” then you need to post details. I have read, and responded to, a number of you other posts that state you are aware of quite a number of TDS claims that have been through the process and the court has passed judgement on. In deed the judgements you quote appear quite strange, e.g. the judge “allowing” the LL to decide whether to return the deposit or protect it?! And allowing a further 14 days grace for deposit protection before the x3 “fine” becoming due. This appears completely to go against both the wording and spirit of the act, what possible incentive is there for the LL to protect a deposit on receipt?

- Unfortunately I am further sceptical about “I’m aware of 3 or 4 successful TDS claims”, due to the extremely early date that we are in the process. I think its quite reasonable to assume that the first TDS claims for non-compliance should only now be being heard by the court, yet you are already aware of 3 or 4 of them, indeed 3 of 4 of them reported on in a SINGLE local news paper?

- So the key here is can you back up what you are saying in terms of N1 being the most appropriate approach and details of successful claims.

- So to clarify. At this stage I 80% disagree with sections 6, 7 and 8 of your “sticky”. I also disagree with some of the requirements in section 5, the onus appears to be to much on the tenant proving non-compliance with TDS rather than the landlord proving compliance. I think section 3 is much much to long winded, faffing with the land registry whats the point? it might not show who the LL is anyway. If in doubt who holds the deposit, simply mark both the LL and the agents as defendants on the N208 form (or N1). Im not sure of the benefit of section 11 LBA – wheres the request for the x3 deposit that is also owed? And obviously section 14 because im yet to be convienced that N1 is the right approach.

So , good post, but it needs some backing up. If you cant, then it should be put on hold until everyone else heres of some successful claims (I know of a couple on here and on landlord zone forums). We have knocked about with the idea of a TDS sticky a couple of times, but have held off until we "know".

[Michael Browne]

Last edited by ShortlyTdwarf : Today at 14:58. Reason: Post will be reinstated at a later date, when people can be bothered to read things prior to writing.

I appreciate you wanted to keep this thread 'clean' (please do not post here etc) and I've no idea whether Planner has a valid arguement.

But your immediate reaction to delete the post with a slightly petulant message, rather than counter his opinion, seems to suggest he might have a point.

[Planner]

Heres a PM that ShortyTDwarf sent me. I was unaware that he had such a delicate disposition as regards to constructive arguments and open discussion. Obviously a public forum is therefore not the best place form him to publish.

I feel unlikley that this is shortytdwarfs "original" work, as he made a fundemental error in a previous post about TDS claims (the x3 deposit issue) which this "original" work of his doesnt make. The N208/N1 argument has been extensivley discussed on both this forum and various others. From that discussion the initial feeling was N208 was the most appropriate route, a much more straight forward route in fact than N1. TDS Court Claims Wording - Possible Sticky?

I have no issue with shortys comments, I just would like the reasoning behind them and the case law that he has made reference to. We have to remmember we arent dealing with a £30 broken DVD player that Currys wont refund on or a £60 parking ticket, we are dealing with peoples homes and significant amounts of money (£1000s), stickys need to be 100% accurate. What needs to be avoided at this stage are statements of absolute certainty, with little to no backing.

Its a shame that Shorty didnt allow other members to comment on what could turn out to be in fact the correct approach. I hope he will make it available in the future if the N1 route is verified.

"It appears blatantly obvious through your own posting, despite a request that members do not post in the thread, that you do want posts on there to support any errors you feel, in your opinion, have been made. The thread was originally locked, but I had it unlocked to enable editing and adding to the content. Your post on there will therefore be requested to be removed. If you have any further issues with it please PM as requested, or open a thread to discuss your fundamental errors.

In answer to your question, it is not cut and pasted from anywhere. It is a wholly original piece of work. It has been prepared by a solicitor who was instrumental in advising several independent organisations as to the meaning of the act in question. And before you ask, any permission or copyright issues have already been addressed between myself, the solicitor in question and the site admin.


Yes, the N208 claim form is indeed an alternative, and if someone wishes to use it they may do so. Personally, I am too unfamiliar with the N208 to give any comment to its validity in TDS cases at the moment. I do have every intention of reading through the Practice Directions and the relevant supplements and forming my own opinion on what I read.

Having said that, the main reason for the document to advise the use of the N1 claim form is that it is simply an easier process for the claim by an individual, in the opinion of the writer of the document. Please continue with your debate as to which form is most suitable, and, if you do find, through use, that the N208 is the best one to use I will amend the thread to show this.

Further, in answer to your question about the cases that I read in the paper, I am currently trying to get more information from the writer of the article I read. I can assure you that, once I get the information requested, I will post it up for all to read. However, this has little to do with the thread in question, and is something that will be posted to either confirm what I remember or prove that my memory is failing and I’m going senile. And to the best of my knowledge, only two posts exist where I have stated anything about claims that have already been through the court."

[Joa]

ShortlyTdwarf's posting is gone but I wonder if it was similar to the following link: http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/medi...ement_pack.pdf

I know that he was getting his info from solicitors preparing info sheet for NUS. Haven't had the time to read the whole leaflet but NUS usually puts out quality stuff.

Comments would of course be welcomed- except the issues with the N1/ N208, which have been aired here before,

[waterbottle]

Someone sticky this thread, just for the above link which seems to have everything needed!

[demon_x_slash]

Joa always delivers, my dear

[Joa]

Joa is always happy to plagiarise and take credit
Nice to see you back demon

[demon_x_slash]

[Thank you - the dreaded 'W' word has been eating up my time... You know, you get up early in the morning, run around all day not getting very far, then come home in the dark, eat, go to bed, rinse, and repeat...

Can't say the same for the 'D' word (y'know, the 15,000 one), but I'm sure I've got time to squeeze it in somewhere... ]

I didn't see the original post, and so can't comment on the accuracy. What I will say, however, is that one of the strengths of this site is the collaborative effort involved - between 174,000 members, and plenty of discussion, things generally seem to come to successful resolutions (the power of the collective mind perfectly demonstrated - if only we could become so organised about politics, or economics - but I digress). This discussion usually does involve a fair amount of to-ing and fro-ing, criticism of others' work, positive, negative, constructive or otherwise, but it is the wrangling itself which develops a cohesive and detailed response to peoples' difficulties. I should hope that ShortlyTdwarf, who has given, as far as I can see, good advice so far, will re-post hir OP and accept Planner's following post in the spirit that it was intended - to iron out any and all inconsistencies to provide a reliable and (above all) accurate guide in order to help as many people as possible.