Mr Shed - I would agree - but the problem that can arise is if the LL realises and does try and make payment before the court hearing. If it actually gets to court and the LL has offered payment - its not really clear what the outcome should be. In my case. I think when it finally dawned of the LL/LA, the LL first tried repayment, then failing that managed to register the deposit with TDS (ie to show the money was covered by TDS) - it of course made no sense registering a deposit for a tenancy that had expired and I dug out the TDS rules of membership to show this was in breach of their regulations (a LA may be expelled for such a breach). The LL sollicitor then moved on to a different argument, saying that the law does allow interpretation that repayment before court action can mean the three times deposit does not need to be repaid. Although there is some support for this, my counter argument was that if this were true, that would render the addition of this act not only redundent, but actually worsening the situation for tenants - exactly the opposite to what these regulations were introduced for. As disreputable LLs would not protect deposits, not tell tenants about it, if they get caught thay can then can force the tenant into Civil Proceedings (a relatively complex process for a joe bloggs person like me), where the LL can simply escape at the end by repaying the outstanding deposit prior to court action. (if you check out the consultation of secondary legislation you will find that the old process involving tenants instigating small claims action was too lengthy and costly for tenants - so why would they replace it with a larger, longer, more expensive and costly process). Apologies if this is going on a bit - but these were the problems I faced - and it got a bit more challenging when the LLs sollicitor got involved -I hope yours is simpler than mine. Potentially - if you run into some of these issues - at least you know there are some answers. Good luck - and if you need anymore info I'll be happy to post up a redacted copy of some of the material I used for LBA and N208. oh and finally point 4 - the 3 times remainder of the deposit - its 3 times the full deposit (I did investigate this at the time just incase it could be interpretted as 3 times the remainder of the deposit). There is nothing in the regulations about "remainder" - its the full deposit. If such a thing were intended it would be included in the Act - and it isnt. I believe the act is clear that it is the deposit (ie full deposit) in all cases. When the Judge enacts the law - they may deduct any payments from the final figure.

Hi I actually won my claim in the end. The LL sollicitor agreed an our of court settlement for £2100 which I accepted. In my case I had left the property in better condition (with evidence) I was a bit put out by his ficticious claims which the agent came up with. In the end they only owed £68. For which they were adamant they were not going to pay. They changed their minds and attempted to pay after I had initiated legal action - which I then declined as it could be viewed as settlement for the claim. The relevent points were: 1) There is some ambiguity around what happens if they repay the entire of the deposit before court action is instigated. Because the law requires the remainder of the deposit to be repaid AND 3 times the deposit. It can be viewed that if the remainder of the deposit has been repaid, the judge cannot exact that condition (as there is no deposit outstanding) - and as he must enact both clauses or none - he does not have to order the 3 times deposit. 2) Ensure you are be covered by TDS, ie you signed up for a AST (ie for 6 months or more), and this signed for after April 2007. 3) I would then accept the £500 (since this is not all the monies), and then send a letter before action for the remainder. If this is not recieved, then instigate legal action for the full amount total deposit + 3 times deposit + legal fees + interest. 4) There is probably no guarentee you will get the 3 times - but if you can show the money was supposed to be protected and was not. At the minimum you should win back the remainder of the deposit and get your court fees back. I would say you would have a very good chance at the 3 times - but my understanding - is if it goes to court there are no guarentees no matter how bullet proof your case.

If the landlord has not completely refunded ALL the deposit money you are fine. He could owe 1p - wouldnt matter. The fact is some money is still outstanding And complete repayment of the deposit this would not be a guarenteed way for him to avert tds non compliance. I have heard of a judge making that call before (I think on these forums) - but equally a Judge could swing the other way.

hmmm - was that full settlement of the deposit? If so, it may make the case more tricky. However, it may be worth proceeding still, you have legal right to go to court if the LL didnt protect the deposit or give you the prescribed information. From everything Ive heard about legal proceedings is they dont always go as expected, so there is nothing ever definite in all this - I am not a legal expert, but I've a pretty good understanding of TDS. Assuming you had a legal right to initiate court proceedings you could continue, even if its just to reclaim your court fees. You have nothing to lose by continuing. Also - no idea on this - but how long ago was the cheque cashed?

ps I have initiated CC proceedings against my LL for TDS non compliance, they tried the same trick. Not long before court now.

dont accept full payment - under the Housing Act 2004 one of the stipulations if you prove your case, the LL must pay the Remainder of Deposit AND 3 x amount. The Judge could chose to say as the deposit has been paid - he cannot enforce repayment of the deposit. Since he has to do both conditions(re AND), or none. You could lose out. Since it has gone to CC state that you cannot accept any payment as this could now be deemed settlement of the case.

Im taking my LL/Agent to court - doing the paperwork this weekend. I'm also going to include the AST contract (s)to prove the deposit was taken after the introduction of the scheme. So I would include your AST contract too. Good Luck.

I have a query is a little complicated: My case, tenancy started 2005, renewed annually through 12 month AST contracts. The last fixed term contract for 2008 states the deposit would be secured in the TDS scheme. We moved to a periodic in early 2009, and now moved. HOWEVER - I didnt notice the tenancy start date for the 2008 contract was dated 2007 - and prior to the legislation. The other dates in the contract, for rent increase, and creation date are all in 2008. Is this case applicable to the 3x deposit?

I received an inventory from them - my view was it was a bit lax/non descriptive - and from a prior experience losing about £1000 on a deposit - made a video of the property this time. Hence - I could always refer to that (this is because what I consider fair condition - to someone else may be poor condition - or vice-versa). I offered to show my tapes to the agency - but they were not interested. I accepted the discolouration to the vinyl was due to us, altho didnt agree it necessitated it being replaced. I volunteered the evidence of the original state (a cut in the vinyl about a foot long). I pointed out the original damage was worse than what we had caused - so by their own argument - it was in need of replacement when we moved in. This agency has a reputation for witholding deposits unfairly. I actually know of others who rent through him (and one friend). The way I see it, is if I let him get away with it - he will continue to do it to others. If I win, it will be a bit of a slap that will make him think twice before doing again. If I lose, he wont enjoy this anymore than I will. I am more than prepared to possibly lose a few hundred for this. I am still researching - for instance I have read of some a case where the Judge has ruled in favour of the landlord because deposit was fully repaid before court. Hence, I wont accept any further payment from him until court anyway. Just trying to map out every argument/counter that may occur - and avoid losing on a technicality.

Just looking at my last bit of detail. Should add there is still a dispute over the remainder. I should also add, we've raised issues on the property over the years, not many were resolved. The rear of the garden of the property originally was overgrown with weeds, when we cleaned it, turned out there was an old tire, pieces of twisted metal, broken glass and rubble. Not very safe for the kids. We cleared it all. It also took a week from when we rented to clean and redecorate the property. The deposit at the end, was witheld for cobwebs, toilet cleaning and the vinyl - however, the cobwebs and toilet cleaning were false claims (I made a video of the property when we started tenancy, and one when we left) - I can substantiate the dates. I think the agent was trying to get me to go back so he could charge for an additional visit to ensure the items had been addressed. The vinyl floor initially we were told it would be hundreds of pounds. I raised an objection as my video clearly showed the floor was originally damaged. If they were claiming complete replacement - this would be betterment - since the original damage was worse than the discolouration patch caused by us. I would have agreed to pay an above fair and tear charge for the vinyl - but never got the chance because he blocked my email and told me to take legal action if I wanted to go further. I dont think he was actually intending for me to do it

The renewed 2008 AST does indeed have the signature from the agency and signed by the landlord. Statement of deposit being required, and TDS scheme it would be registered under. the deposit has mostly been repaid, although its taken 2 months - originally he witheld it all for cobwebs, toilet cleaning and a relatively small patch of discolouration on the kitchen vinly floor. It took 6 weeks before the first payment of £790 was paid back, another £60 came last week following my TDS query, leaving around £70. My problem with them is the stress and hassle: I'll make whatever deductions I like - take me to court if you dare - a bully boy tactic. I have personal motivation against people like this. Prob worth mentioning - the property was completely redecorated before we moved out - it was vastly superior/cleaner to the state when we moved in (all of this can be substantiated). If he had just repaid I would have been happy. The protection of deposits - the main thrust I think is to help prevent the above. ie deposits being retained unfairly. Thats why I think the penalty is there (re consulatation on secondary legislation doc).

Help Please I have a case that I intend to take to court. Base details are as follows. Tenancy Started in 2005, typically we have 12 month AST renewals since then. We went on a periodic early 2009 and have since moved, there is a dispute over the deposit which the Agency has ultimately invited me to take him to court for the remainder. I had to ensure I had reasonably attempted every other avenue for claiming back the money before small claims. It was then I discovered in the 2008 AST contract it stated a desposit was required and this would be registered with TDS. Investigated TDS- then I found out about the 3 x deposit etc. So contacted TDS. Deposit wasnt registered. Contacted Agency, and they said they didnt have a signed contract from us for 2008, as such we have been on a Periodic contract since then, and that is the reason the money wasnt put into the scheme. The case of claiming the contract is void - I think I can handle. Since I have some pretty strong evidence it is and has been honoured (I have a signed copy with proof of payment). So the big question is TDS, the 3 xtimes deposit, and how it is treated in renewals. Naturally, in my case as the 2008 contract states a deposit is required, it would be reasonable to assume from the the contract that the deposit would be treated as returned to me and paid back such that it could be registered with the TDS scheme and comply with the law. If they did argue that the deposit wasnt ACTUALLY received after 2007, and hence doesnt apply to the provisions in 2007 to the Housing Act 2004 - could I argue that this is a breach of contract, the breach resulting in a loss of the 3 times deposit? I am planning to take this court - so I am looking for arguments for and against at this stage. I am still compiling evidence and sifting through the paperwork, to try and make sure I have all my bases covered, plus reading up on the other threads around this. Any help on this would be really appreciated.