Yes it is written in the law that the Landlord is ultimately responsible but... mydeposits (at the time the insurance was taken out) gave misleading information on their website that allowed landlords to believe that the insurance would pay out should the agent go bust and do a runner with the deposit! SO landlords happily leave the deposit in the scheme chosen by [causing problems] 'agents' who have every intention of taking as many deposits as possible and then folding. ONLY when the agent has disappeared are landlords then sent the FULL information which was previously never available on the mydeposits website which states clearly that the landlord is NOT covered. as previously stated the other insurance based scheme does cover the landlord if the agent goes bust and also only uses agents who are members of a professional body. A much better system.

My tenant has his deposit back - he claimed it back through the insurance co (mydeposits). I never saw the deposit, it was taken by the agent and the insurance was taken out by the agent. I had no say in the deposit scheme as the agent was acting for me and the mydeposits website at the time was misleading to say the least in allowing landlords to belive that they were covered should an agent go bust. The dispute is not between me and the tenant, the dispute is between me (landlord) and mydeposits who are now seeking to reclaim the cost of the deposit from me. There is no victimisation of the tenant so therefore I assume no abuse of county court procedure. mydeposits is the only scheme which does not protect the landlord when an agent goes bust and at the time this insurance was taken out their website info was misleading. Given that mydeposits hold the landlord responsible for return of deposit when an agent defaults, I fail to see why a landlord can not expect some form of correspondence from mydeposits when the insurance is first taken out to advise a) that the insurance has been taken out by an agent and b) that mydeposits will hold the landlord responsible for paying the deposit back should the agent default. Some may suggest that mydeposts were deliberately misleading landlords into thinking they were protected because had I and others realised they were so exposed they would have used an alternative TDS. Interestingly mydeposits is the only insurance based scheme which uses agents who are not members of a professional body, it does not ensure the deposit is placed in a ring-fenced account as is specified in it's rules and is therefore completely open for abuse by unscrupulous agents. I will contact the Ombudsman so thanks for this info. But I can not roll over and accept liability and I have contacted mydeposits solicitors to see if we can resolve out of court but I'm advised it needs to go through the court unless I want to pay the full amount. Even if I wanted to pay, I do not have the money so I do not have an option but to let this go to the court as far as I can see. Thank you for the Housing Ombudsman info.

I have received Court papers today and intend to submit a defence. Firstly I intend to submit the Acknowledgment of Service form to allow more time to prepare. Papers were issued by Central London County Court, I reside in Scotland and am finding it difficult to get advice as this is a matter for English law. I can't afford to employ a solicitor so will attempt to defend myself - not holding out much hope but I can't roll over and accept this either. I have looked online for other cases since I first raised this issue in 2008 but can't find anything to indicate that a Landlord has been successful in a case against Mydeposits.co.uk when an agent has gone bust and taken the deposit. I accept fully that the law states that the Landlord is ultimately responsible for the return of the deposit but at the time when this insurance was taken out there was nothing on the mydeposits website to show this - in fact the first time they sent documentation to indicate this was once the agent had defaulted. Indeed the website gave the impression that the Landlord was covered too. This has all changed now and it is clear on the website that the landlord is responsible. Has anyone any advice to offer on this situation i.e. does anyone know of a case that has already gone to court? Do I stand a chance given that I feel I was misled not only by the Agent but also by the information and practices of mydeposits.co.uk at that time? If the Landlord is ultimately responsible then surely they should have had some form of correspondence with me prior to the Agent going bust. Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks very much for your reply ErikaPNP, it's very helpful. One would presume that where court orders have been granted for preventative treatment it is because a childs survival or development was at high risk if treatment was not received. This was not the case in my situation, in fact one could argue that there was an extremely low risk given the statistics relating to the number of newborns infected and who go on to develop complications or worse. And indeed the Group B Strep Support Organisation advise that a mother at increased risk like myself should be 'offered' antibiotics rather than 'strongly advised' to have antibiotics like those mothers at high risk http://www.gbss.org.uk/filepool/2007_10_GBS_and_PregA5.pdf I was not even strongly advised, I was forced and it was a copy of this leaflet from the link above which the hospital gave me at the time for information so presumably they agree with the information offered in this leaflet. I see there are no local offices for PALS in Scotland which is where I live, do they only support patients in England do you know or is there a Scottish equivalent service that you're aware of?

I recently gave birth, My membranes ruptured, I was in hospital in labour and the NHS wanted to give me IV antibiotics 24hrs later just in case I had Step B infection which may be passed to baby. There were no signs this infection was present but I understand it can exist without symptoms. I did not want these and refused. I was spoken to by a paediatric registrar who explained fully the risks so that I could make a "fully informed decision". Now fully informed, I decided I did not want to receive the antibiotics for what I consider valid medical reasons which I won't detail here. Thought this was the end but then a second paediatric registrar arrived at my bedside to threaten me with the fact that if I did not receive the antibiotics then after my baby was born they would obtain an emergency child protection order if necessary to ensure that my baby received antibiotics directly through a canula in the back of it's hand along with blood taken for testing. There was no sign of infection this was purely hospital policy to administer prophylactic antibiotics, I had not received these with a previous pregnancy where membranes had ruptured and I was given 48hrs with no antibiotics. I was put under extreme pressure whilst I was labour and frankly felt bullied by the 2nd registrar who told me that I had a right to decide whether to receive antibiotics whilst the baby was in utero but once the baby was born I did not have the right to decide, she advised that they had a duty of care to the child and they would go through "their channels" to ensure that it received antibiotics directly along with bloods taken. I feel like I did not have a choice and was forced into accepting the antibiotics because of course I would not want my child to be put through these procedures if I could prevent it and receive the treatment directly myself. I am very keen to know if anyone can advise me if a child protection order (CPO) could be obtained for such circumstances? I can very much imagine that they can if I refuse treatment for a child who is sick and needing treatment as they have a duty of care to that child. Can they really get a CPO to administer antibiotics 'just in case' a child may have an infection although there are no signs or symptoms? Any advice will be gratefully received as I feel very angry about the way I was treated over a period of 7hrs whilst in labour and would like to complain to the hospital. Thanks for reading.

Thanks all for your detailed responses.

Hello - Could anyone advise whether the information below Originally Posted by TheBogsDollocks in another thread re. a pcn being non compliant would also be applicable to a PCN issued in Scotland under the Road Traffic Act 1991 (As Amended)? Thanks Originally Posted by TheBogsDollocks in another thread: The pcn is non compliant. Many people are under the false impression that a person only has 28 days to submit an informal challenge. The truth of the matter is that a person can submit an informal challenge at any time before an NtO is served and the regulations require a PCN to convey this. See 3(2)(b) Results within Legislation - Statute Law Database 3(2)(b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— (i) those representations will be considered; (ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner Failing to make this clear on the PCN may cause prejudice. For instance, a person (who has not yet received an NtO) may only remember about the PCN on the 30th day after it was served and may think they are out of time for any appeal as the PCN implies that they only had 28 days when actually the law allows them to appeal at any time before the NtO is served. NtO's are not generally served immediately after 28 days of the PCN being served. It could be up to 6 months before an NtO is served.

Could anyone advise whether the information Originally Posted by TheBogsDollocks re. the PCN being non compliant would also be applicable to a PCN issued in Scotland under the Road Traffic Act 1991 (As Amended)? Thanks

Thankyou. Also interested to hear from anyone reading this who has any knowledge of a case where mydeposits has pursued a landlord after an Agent hasn't paid back deposit. Or the outcome of any cases where a landlord has taken legal action against mydeposits???? I intend to take legal action if they chase me for the deposit in the coming weeks so will update with more info if it comes to this.

Thanks Tawnyowl this is very useful, it's a shame the initial poster hasn't come back on to say what the outcome was but there is some good information in this thread all the same.

A commercial landlord would lease a property used primarily for business. A residential landlord, residential property. A residential landlord does not always rent for profit. For example we just want the house occupied and looked after until we can return to live in it ourselves. I was simply making the point that we are not large scale landlords, it is not our main business and therefore we have simply made an error by putting our trust with Agents who we believed to be the professionals. I was not suggesting that the usual landlord obligations don't apply to us. The law is there to protect both Landlords and Tenants but in this situation the TDS appears to have failed both Tenant and Landlord. We had agreed a reduction in rent with our tenant to help ease their financial burden in this current economic climate, but as it is looking like we will have to pay the deposit taken by the Agent we can no longer affford to do this. Our Tenant can not afford to pay the higher rate rent so now has to leave, which neither of us wants. The only person to benefit is the Agent who appears to have plundered the so called 'ring-fenced' account which our deposit (and other Landlords) should have been held in. We do have Landlords Insurance which I will check but I'm not holding out too much hope there as I know we are legally responsible ultimately. I've been advised by joining a Landlords Association you can receive free and unlimited advice and support. For anyone interested or who finds themselves in the same position you may be interested in the request from a journalist I've just found on the Residential Landlords Association website: RLA : Residential Landlords Association

mydeposits.co.uk confirmed that they will seek to reclaim the deposit from the Landlord if the Agent has folded. This just seems completely unfair! We are not commercial Landlords, average people letting out our home whilst living elsewhere for a period of time. We have tried to abide by these new tenancy deposit regulations in order to do the right thing. We put our trust in what seemed like a professional agency and have been taken for a complete ride it seems. We certainly can not afford to pay £950 to our tenant who leaves in June. Does anyone have any information on where we could go to seek advice - other than a costly legal service?

Thanks but we are not in the Tyneside area, the agent was on the South Coast but I will investigate if the same situation applies. The agent was not with the ARLA. Latest update is the Agent sent me an email confirming the company has folded and she sent a copy of the Deposit Protection Certificate for the insurance-based Tenancy Deposit Scheme to confirm that the deposit is protected (at least for the Tenant) A second call to mydeposits.co.uk and I was told that they are investigating what has happened to the Agent and once this is understood they will write to both Landlord and Tenant advising how to proceed. I'm told we should hear from them in the next week so I will post again once I know the result. As it's an insurance company I'm not expecting positive news but if anyone can shed any light from a legal perspective on whether we are likely to have to pay the deposit it would be useful. Many thanks.

Thanks for your replies. Certainly a lesson has been learnt and it's easy with hindsight to know what to do in future. Crem you are right how crazy it is, the deposit is supposed to be protected but it's only protecting the Tenant in this case. If an agent takes out the insurance then surely the agent should be responsible. In the T&Cs on mydeposits website it appears that they may require proof that the deposit has been put in a seperate deposit holding account before they will provide insurance - I'll check this but of course that doesn't give the Landlord any help if the agent decides to plunder the account and go underground. Not good.

Hi - I am the landlord of a property. We used an agent to find a tenant and part of the agreement was that they would take the £950 deposit and put it in a DPS I recently found out that the letting agent has folded. Unfortunately it appears that the deposit has gone with them as they used mydeposits.co.uk and so as landlord I will be responsible for repaying my tenant's deposit. I obviously didn't pay enough attention to this and should have put the deposit in a DPS myself but hindsight is a wonderful thing. The letting agent changed their co. registered address to the empty shop address about three weeks before clearing off. The usual phone numbers are not in use and noone responds to email. Can anyone offer any advice please?

Would this be preferable to going the small claims court route? I don't know what a solicitor would charge but I'm only looking to get back the £100 excess I paid the insurance plus some form of compensation for my loss of no claims.

Thanks, do you think a NWNF firm would be interested in such a small claim? I'm trying to speak with one that would deal with a case like this but so far they're only interested in personal injury claims... I'm based in Scotland - does anyone have any suggestions?

Hi A large communal council bin hit my car when there were high winds last year. The insurance paid for the repair but I had to pay £100 excess and my no claims has been affected. I believe the council are responsible as the street is on a hill and they used to have fixings in the road which secured the bins to the road but when the road was resurfaced the fixings were not put back so the only security on the bins were the foot brakes. The flat is in a city centre and the bins were regularly moved around and used to block the one way road by people having had a few drinks. On the day of the incident the huge bin was stopped by two pedestrians before the bin rolled onto a busy main road. The council's solicitors have advised that the council were not negligent and liability is denied as the bin men confirmed they applied the brakes after servicing and because there were inclement weather conditions which could have caused the incident and this is out of the councils control. My insurance have said from the very beginning that it is unlikely a recovery will be made as councils are notorious for not paying up. I received a letter recently to say that esure are closing the claim as their inhouse solicitors have reviewed the claim and think the prospects of making a recovery are low. The following is an extract from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34 which refers to Waste Management and the Duty of Care A code of Practice: Waste left for collection 2.7 Waste left for collection outside premises should be in containers that are strong and secure enough to resist not only wind and rain but also animal disturbance, especially for food waste. All containers left outside for collection will therefore need to be secured or sealed. Can anyone offer any advice on how I should proceed with this; should I continue to challenge esure to continue with the claim or should I take it to the small claims court myself? Maybe write to the council myself? Thanks for reading.

HOORAY! Ya Beauty! Sent letter advising if they didn't refund full amount I would be sending a SAR. Got a call on the day they received letter to advise a cheque is being sent for full amount ) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE.

Thank you for your replies. Another reason they may be offering half the cash back is because they have accepted that they have handled my complaint very badly - it took them 5 months to send a response to my original complaint on the telephone and they were saying inappropriately that all bank charge refunds were on hold due to court case. Maybe this has somethign to do with their offer... Not sure it's necessary to send SAR as I have a copy of the original credit agreement I signed when I first opened the account with a 0% balance transfer offer and I know I haven't signed anything else. Halifax advised that it wasn't necessary for me to sign anything else in relation to the later transfer with a 3% fee because my original agreement was signed and as long as they make me aware of changes to their T&Cs they don't need me to sign anything else. She went on to say that I would have received something in the post at some point advising of the fee but may have discarded it as junk mail. Surely this can't be correct - can my signature on the original credit agreement be used to confirm agreement with any changes to T&Cs they choose to send in 'junk mail' at a later date? If I don't send SAR, would you suggest going to Ombudsman next? With many thanks for your time on this.

Unsure of my position I decided to send a letter requesting a full refund and advising I was prepared to take matters further. They tried to call me but didn't get me so sent a letter advising they would not refund. I called them and they have advised they will pay half back as the original call is no longer available to listen to. I asked if I should have signed something to agree to the transfer and fee etc. but she advised this wasn't necessary. Can anyone offer any advise? Should I accept this or as nothing was signed relating to this transfer do I stand a chance of getting the full amount back if I refer to the Ombudsman? If I'm posting in the wrong place please advise or even if you're not interested please say, it would be nice to get any sort of response! Thanks

Any ideas anyone? If I've closed the account do they still have to send a copy of the Credit Card Agreement? Thanks.

Hello I started a dispute with Halifax over a balance tranfer fee which I'm sure they didn't tell me about. The last correspondence from them was September 2007 advising that they had listened to the call I made and have confirmed that I was advised of the fee on the call. I signed a CCA and transferred a balance when I first got the card - there was no tranfer fee and no interest. I transferred the balance to another card after 6 months so my Halifax card had zero balance for a few months. At the end of the other cards promo rate I called Halifax to see what offers they had on balance transfers and I'm sure they only told me about the 6.9% for the life of the balance and not a 3% transfer fee. I was so annoyed I moved the money and CLOSED THE ACCOUNT. Have I shot myself in the foot? I was about to go the route of asking for a signed copy of the CCA showing I had agreed to this 3% transfer fee as I know I didn't get anything to sign for the 2nd balance transfer I just received a statement in the 2nd month showing this fee. I then think I read somewhere that they don't have to send one if the account is closed? Any advice on how I can progress this dispute would be very gratefully received. Thanks for reading.

An update for anyone interested... We went with the service and overhaul on our Phil & Teds Sport buggy and all seems ok so far. The customer service we had from the Internet shop was very good - they paid for all the courier fees throughout (and incidently have stopped selling this product now due to the issues and costs involved with returns we were told) The distributor, 'Out n About', did what was required - that's about all I can say, they certainly didn't leave me with any warm fuzzy feelings! The product - I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND. I love the design and ease of carrying 2 kids but of the four people I know with this buggy, three have had issues with the same brackets that we did. So if you are having an issue and have the chance just get a refund and buy something else!

Thanks for your reply. It's a double buggy and whilst one child is almost out of it, the other will certainly neeed it for at least another year and half and if we planned to expand the family I'd expect to put the newborn in it in a few months with my second child. One of my concerns is that the safety standards are not up to scratch on this particular frame. I would be happy with a new replacement but from what you're saying this is not an option to me anyway. Thanks again.