Section 15 of that Act says: 15 Implied term about consideration (1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge. (2) What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact. The way this is written seems intended to make sure that a customer can't try to ensure that a supplier provides goods or services at a stupidly low price. But, as written, there is in my opinion no logical reason why it should not be reciprocal. In your case, you would have to convince the court that the consideration (i.e. the charge) for the service is not determined explicitly by the contract (which I believe it is not), and that the charge being levied by the supplier is not reasonable. So, yes, that approach takes everybody back to the same old chestnut of "are these charges reasonable." The problem is working out what is reasonable, within the meaning of the act and any precedent-setting judgements which have flowed from it. For instance, if every bank charges £20-30 to bounce a DD, I can't see how a court could accept that your bank charging £30 to bounce a DD would be considered "unreasonable". It is NOT the same - in my opinion - as trying to argue that the charge is unreasonable compared to the cost of provision. The legislation is aimed at stopping either side from getting a nasty shock - sellers don't want to be stuck supplying goods for nothing, whilst customers don't want to find that the ball of string they ordered in good faith is apparently going to cost £10,000. So, I don't really see how this piece of legislation actually helps you in your particular case. Others might disagree.

Hi kayadkaz, any news? Do you have the tenancy agreement? If so, what does it say (if anything) about fire?

Unfortunately the legal system is a battleground, and the aim of the game is to get the judge to agree with your particular point of view. In this case, and I'm sorry if I have this wrong, pickle; - was not clear on the purpose of the hearing - was unable to get the desired outcome - may have been represented in the record as being unhelpful Unfortunately that simply means the other side played the game better, whether in court or with their pre-court preparations and/or documents. Such is life, and is but one of the reasons why I believe the legislation as written is not as clear-cut in terms of likely outcomes as others have suggested it might be. Anyhow, the important thing now is the actual hearing of the case. Pickle, I feel you need to make absolutely sure that you are prepared for this. From what you have said, it sounds as though you need help from people who actually understand the system (or the "game" if you like). You may want to consider talking to a solicitor. You definitely need to read as much as you can and make sure you have it clear in your mind what is likely to happen next and how to handle the court. These forums may be helpful in that, but they are a bit prone to people making pronouncements of "fact" rather than giving you practical, actionable advice. If you want some advice here, you might want to consider posting up everything you have written so far on your claim form, and so on, and perhaps also everything you have received as a defence from the other side, so that any advice can be based on what has actually gone as far as the court.

Start lobbying your MPs to amend legislation to re-instate proper security of tenure for tenants!

It might be instructive to read this piece about uninhabitable premises. The tenancy agreement is the first port of call for working out what is going on. Some will include clauses relating to, say, "unused" parts of the rent being returned to the tenant, some will not. Many will explicitly refer to suspension of the tenancy whilst repair works are carried out; some will not. As the link above suggests, there may be an implied obligation on the landlord to provide housing, but I don't believe this has been tested in a higher court yet. What is clear (and I've checked the Housing Act 1988) is that there is no general provision for a tenancy to terminate simply because its effect is currently frustrated due to fire damage (or for any other like reason). In fact, there doesn't seem to be a provision to even allow this to happen by some other mechanism - the legislation was written in this way specifically to stop landlords from inventing reasons to evict tenants arbitrarily. So, the tenancy is key. In order to advise kayadkaz accurately, that document needs to be present. However, for the moment assuming it is similar to many other ASTs (available to view online courtesy of your favourite search engine), it may well specify or imply that the tenancy is suspended whilst repairs are carried out, whereupon it starts up again. In that case, since the tenancy hasn't ended, the deposit isn't repayable - yet. Kayadkaz would then need to write to the landlord, asking him/her to terminate the tenancy by mutual agreement with effect from the date of the fire. Assuming he/she agrees to that, the deposit would become due. Planner is quite right, if kayadkaz hasn't done anything to cause the fire or otherwise breached the terms of the tenancy, the deposit is due back. But only if the tenancy is over, which it may not be. Why might a landlord not agree to terminate the tenancy early? Well, some landlords have insurance cover which pays them the lost rent whilst the property is being repaired, but the policy may not pay out where there is not currently a tenancy. Kayadkaz can always apply to a court to have the tenancy formally determined (terminated) due to frustration in the interests, basically, of "fair play", so that the OP can get on with their life. At the end of the day, kayadkaz, do you have the tenancy agreement? If not then you'll need to get hold of a copy - without it, this isn't yet clear.

With respect, this is nonsense. In precisely the same way as anybody else can, the landlord can sign an affadavit stating that he/she posted the required information on the such-and-such day. The landlord can also rely upon existing legislation as regards assumptions as to the delivery of first class post and the corresponding effective service date. The law of such things has not been negated by the legislation relating to deposit schemes. If the claimant wishes to challenge that affadavit, he/she will have to demonstrate why the affadavit should not be believed. The onus is therefore back on the claimant to do so. The claimant needs to be prepared for this in court (if appearing as litigant in person). Of course one attack might be "it is well-known that post goes missing, why did you not get a receipt / send it recorded / whatever" and that might introduce sufficient doubt, but it is not the "slam dunk" that you seem to think. It is for this reason that I personally believe an action based solely on a single cause (not receiving notification) is a bit of a lottery, and may well not be worth the risk of instructing a solicitor over. But as one of a number of causes it makes sense, where another is an allegation of non-compliance with the requirement to put the deposit into the TDS.

With respect, I do not disagree for the sake of it - even now. However just because I don't support the sometimes-prevailing view on these forums that everyone is hard done by is hardly cause for disapointment. I've only made 44 posts so far. I haven't once posted for the sake of posting a disagreement (I really don't have the time); I've expressed views which are rooted in fact and/or personal experience. The only serious argument I've had related to mental health and, since I have rather more experience of it from all sides of the debate than most of the other posters on the topic, I'm afraid I'm quite qualified to comment - however much it goes against the party line. As to the issue at hand, you will please note that I have not said that you're wrong. I have, however, said that I don't believe the issue is clear-cut as the legislation is presently worded. As ever in law, the ruling of the court is (relatively) supreme, which is why counsel's opinion is seldom actionable if a case goes the "other" way. You may express a view, but it would be helpful (to the OP and to others who come on this forum for guidance) if you expressed your view as just that, a view, rather than "fact".

OK, I am not a landlord, I am a tenant. I still think the penalties are draconian. I think the principle of a private individual claiming for a loss that has not happened is wrong. If the Government had wanted a properly robust system, they would have set up a watchdog/regulator/agency to whom complaints could be made and who could take action against landlords. At the moment it is DIY regulation on the cheap. It is for those reasons that I think it is a waste of everybody's time. As to the wording of the law, here we go: (3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either— (a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or (b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. (4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. It is clear (to me, at least) from the tenses and language used that the drafters of this legislation imagined that proceedings would be happening whilst there was a deposit being held. Since that isn't the case here, it is not clear to me that the issue is clear-cut. Edited to add: (3) cannot be complied with, even though the act says it "must" happen; in the absence of (3) and following the language, (4) cannot apply because it is an "also" to something that cannot happen. The very fact that we disagree about that indicates that it is not clear-cut. There is no excuse for that in modern legislation - it should be crystal clear, and I believe it is not.

Security of tenure is incompatible with the current housing market. Mortgage companies will only lend large amounts against property which they can take back and sell if they need to without sitting tenants. Without the relaxation in tenant protection there would have been no explosion in private landlords. Without that explosion there would not have been the stupid property inflation we've seen over the last 10 years or so. Conversely, without the relaxation and attendant boom, there would have been much less new building. By the way, even the assured shorthold tenancy will not stop you getting evicted if the landlord doesn't pay his/her mortgage. The mortgage company can take posession at any time and evict you. Meanwhile the landlord CAN raise your rent to a higher amount because of the money you spend on doing up a property. Do NOT spend money on improving a rented property on an assured shorthold tenancy.

[Edited to add: it isn't "breaking" the law at all, since this is not a criminal matter. The relevant law is broadly a non-negotiable civil contract - if the landlord doesn't do something and if the tenant applies to the County Court then the Court must award some damages.] As has been said already, it is unknown how courts are going to react to this regime. In general, there seems to be a bit of a problem at the moment where a deposit has been safely returned yet wasn't put into a scheme. Where is the loss suffered by the tenant in this circumstance? Rather more importantly, where is the legislation to govern that? I've just gone and read the relevant sections of the Housing Act 2004. It is, I'm afraid, not clear that they apply where there is no longer a deposit (i.e. it has been returned). The relevant part is Chapter 4, and specifically section 214. The section deals with what happens when there is a deposit being held by the landlord, but not when there is no deposit currently being held. Since Pinkmilk's deposit has been returned, my view is that it is unclear whether s.214 applies and whether the penalty of "triple damages" can be applied-for. To get this clarified would take a trip to the higher courts, which I'm sure neither Pinkmilk nor his/her former landord would be prepared to pay for. Without case law to suggest that s.214 applies in this circumstance, I would have to say I think it doesn't and that, therefore, Pinkmilk going to the County Court over this is ill-advised and possibly a complete waste of everybody's time.

Sorry, rather than quote a long post, it is common practice on forums to paraphrase briefly but in such a way as to make it clear it is not a quote. To clarify: the "unfortunate stuff" was your account of less-than-acceptable housing and other matters the "spurious stuff" was the suggestion that it was reasonable to issue proceedings and use up court time against a landlord or agent who had actually returned your deposit.

Trying to take a cat to the vet is good practice for dealing with toddlers, in my opinion... Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid, since I don't see any evidence that such places were designed by anybody with any expertise in childhood development. We don't in general let children just run riot and make up their own rules, so why should we thing that an attraction designed solely to appeal to children who in turn tug on their parents' wallets should be supported? I agree, and I try very hard with my son to make sure that we are not a nuisance to the rest of society. And I don't think it in the least discriminatory to be told "sorry, our choice is to have a quiet cafe with no children". I do think The House of Tiny Tearaways (v.interesting BBC Three series) should be compulsory viewing for all parents. There shouldn't be much misery, but (by my observation) a great many parents' skills are pretty poor. Oh no, because the child might be abducted and abused. We'll ignore the fact that the incidence of such offences is lower now than it has ever been (although each one is widely reported), and that breeding children for vulnerability by not allowing them to interact freely with the world on their own is simply a recipe for disaster. Leave your child with the bag of crisps these days and Social Services would be round before your beer was poured.

Let me see if I have this straight. You want to take action against the letting agent of the first property? In that case, with respect, what has the story about the fleas got to do with this at all? Or are you just a bit frustrated and want to "have a go"? The purpose of the schemes is to protect deposits and therefore tenants. If, whilst a tenant, you discover a lack of TDS then it seems fair to take action in order to protect your interests. But if you have got your deposit back promptly (which you have), you suffered no loss as a result of the agent's (in)action. Whilst you might technically have a case, a reasonable judge should (in my opinion) not see this as a particularly good use of the court's time.

I understand Age Concern's position; as an action group, they seek protection or assistance for their constituency in the same way as other groups do of their constituencies. To term the matters that Age Concern complain against as "discrimination" is, in many cases, stretching things a bit (but they are a lobbying group, so they need to use such rhetoric). Considering the issues you raised in particular: Health Age Concern would like every person of any age to be treated equally by the NHS, and in so doing they misunderstand the role of the NHS at inception and since. The NHS was considered a good investment in post-war Britain because it would allow the workforce to remain healthy. Workers were in short supply, we needed to "export or die", and the poor couldn't get out of poverty nor the country get out of the post-war hole it was in without a healthy workforce. The NHS has never treated everybody equally. It has limited resources and must allocate those according to the needs of the country, not of the individual. On a national scale, spending £20k on surgery to prolong the life of a productive worker is a much better investment than spending the same £20k on an older person who has stopped contributing economically to society. Now the NHS has pushed the remit a long way over the years, and a great many treatments are available to the elderly despite those constraints. But when resources are limited, prioritisation must happen, and the elderly are always going to suffer in that divvying-up process. At a national level, I can't disagree with that. Age Concern have an objective. If the population keeps ageing as fast as it does (lives prolonged in large part by much better healthcare) then simple democratic realities might tip the balance, but not just yet. Education Similar arguments apply, in fairness. State-funded education isn't a human right just for the personal amusement of the individual. If you've got to the age of 65 without taking advantage of the education services provided to you, why should you look like a good bet for state investment over the age of 65? Ultimately, what is education for at a state level? It is about ensuring the current and future prosperity of the nation. Again, the resources are limited, and need to be focussed on those who will benefit most. Transport Now this seems a bit of a stretch to me. Disability legislation deals with the need for public transport to cater to those with "accessibility" requirements. Those over retirement age get free or very highly subsidised public transport travel (which is not means-tested - I know several well-off over-65s who enjoy travelling for business for next to nothing). I'm curious to know where you perceive the discrimination is here? Going back to Age Concern, I found this: It is a very clever quote, because he attempts to make it appear that discrimination is "unfair" in some absolute sense, and ignores the right and responsibility of government to protect the general well-being of the nation as a whole. If we treat the elderly in the NHS in preference to working younger people, the country loses out two-fold. Elsewhere in the article that came from, reference is made to "insurance, car hire and financial products are often denied to people over certain ages, or at an extortionate premium" and yet there is no attempt to understand the risks to providers of offering such products to older people. To conclude, so far I haven't seen any evidence of any form of systemic discrimination against the elderly which is unfair or otherwise against the wider interests of the nation and of society in the context of a limited total pot of resources. Economic activity by the population is what drives the nation, and resources will always be put into supporting people in their attempt to do this. Hence why age discrimination in the workplace was a good candidate for action - why chuck out older people who are still earning money and paying taxes to pay for the NHS, benefits, etc. that we all enjoy? Sorry, as you surmised, I thought you were using "Mum" in that context; sorry!

It would be more helpful if you said "as a parent", since you seem to be complaining about discrimination against parents, not just female parents. Can you give us some examples? This line is trotted out so often these days, as if "well, we all know that" when in fact, err, we don't. Please give us some specific examples of actual discrimination against significant numbers of people that is not protected so we can widen the debate.