Deposit not protected

[robert_harper_2000]

But I doubt he would be quite so considerate once I started proceedings. I guess I could always wait until I move out and see if he becomes unreasonable as there is no limit on when I can sue, is there?

[MrShed]

Correct. That would probably be my personal opinion.

[robert_harper_2000]

Has anyone got a template...?

[dannymyers]

Originally Posted by waterbottle

Rob,

Don't worry about the thing that Ed999 posted. It is not accurate.

From what we know, it seem that you have a solid case for the 3 x penalty. I am not computer literate enough to post links but can you use the search facility?

Also, the thread started by ABitOfAPickle regarding the Tenency Deposit Scheme has almost everything in, and contains other links. If someone could post a link to that please...

Good luck Rob.

I am agreed with water bottle up to certain extent .

[MrShed]

Originally Posted by dannymyers

I am agreed with water bottle up to certain extent .

Up to what extent??????

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by robert_harper_2000

But I doubt he would be quite so considerate once I started proceedings. I guess I could always wait until I move out and see if he becomes unreasonable as there is no limit on when I can sue, is there?

Bear in mind that there is one case, the link I can't find at the moment, where an action was taken out for non-protection. In this case, the tenant took the action after they had left the property. The judge took the view that as the tenant was no longer a tenant, having left the property, then as he was no longer a "tenant" he was not entitled to take out an action.

Many posters regard this ruling as wrong, but unless it is appealed to the high court it will not be regarded as case law.

The law as drafted has a number of shortcomings - it is poorly thought out in places. Thus until this and other anomalies are sorted out in the higher courts and clarified by case law, there is a risk that an action will fail for any one of a number of technical reasons.

[robert_harper_2000]

hmm... so now or never. What if he got ****ed off and throw us out? and the Judge throws the case out?

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by robert_harper_2000

hmm... so now or never. What if he got ****ed off and throw us out? and the Judge throws the case out?

Well, if you could engineer him into throwing you out, and there is no court order, you'll need to open a saving account that gives a good rate of interest for large deposits.

That will be unlawful eviction, and as well as being a criminal act, the damages you can obtain are close to obscene.

I am aware of a case a decade ago where the landlord did this. When it got to court and the tenants won, the judge then turned to damages. He said that the property was worth £90K on the open market. With uncooperative assured tenants, the value of the property would be worth around £58K. The damages awarded were the difference of the two figures £32K.

[robert_harper_2000]

Wow that would certainly help with the credit crunch. Well I just feel bad is it def. that you can't sue the LA

have called Palms and they confirm that they do hold your deposit .
The regulation on managing deposits came into force April 2007 and you singed up the tenancy on November 2006 .
Nevertheless it has always been Palm's policy to hold all deposits .

It seems to be the LA that is holding it and as I went through them isn't it there fault?

[robert_harper_2000]

Bump

[MrShed]

Doesnt matter - still the landlord.

Robert sorry, not to be offensive, but how many times are you going to ask the same question to get the same answer?

[robert_harper_2000]

Point taken. Sorry you have been very patient. Cheers for your help. I'll try emailing him the law and see what happens.

Cheers again, you were right I did know the answer not sure why I continue to ask it lol

[MrShed]

No worries - I understand why you clarify just trying to drum the point in haha!

Good luck, let us know how you go!!

[robert_harper_2000]

OK received a letter 'final response' cheeky b'stards I've been trying to sort it out without the courts!!! But it appears there is nothing else I can do.

Is this wording ok to go ahead with?

The Claimant claims under section 214(1)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 that the deposit of £1011.00 required by the tenancy agreement dated 16/05/2007 in respect of the premises at X MY ADDRESS X made between the Claimant and the Defendant was not paid into an appropriate tenancy deposit scheme (in breach of section 213(1) of the Housing Act 2004), or that the Claimant did not receive the prescribed information concerning which Tenancy Deposit Scheme was holding the deposit within 14 days of the Defendant's receipt of the deposit (in breach of section 213(3) of the Housing Act 2004).

And the Claimant asks 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 do pay to the Claimant, within 14 days of the making of the order, a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit, in accordance with section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004.

3. The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from 16/05/2007 to 30/09/2008 of £446.36, and interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.89.

The Claimant is therefore seeking payment of £4044.00, plus the court fee and interest.

[MrShed]

Sounds fine to me....Planner will know better though

[robert_harper_2000]

OK cheers oh also does it need to be done through the N1 or can I send it via the moneyclaim.gov.uk ?

[anyIdea]

It should be done through N208, as far as I know.

[robert_harper_2000]

and to double, triple check it isn't a problem that I started renting before the scheme was in place. However have renewed twice since on the AST last time I changed to a periodic.