Jump to content

1manteam

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    15
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About 1manteam

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Yes, by the County Court. The Clerk told me there was a fixed cost of £175 in TDS cases. The total amount, for which I've yet to receive anything would be in excess of 5k cap but my understanding was that TDS cases are treated distinctly due to the relevant legislation. I have no problem waiting although I don't like the tone or the threatening nature of the letter - they could have contacted me earlier? Thanks
  2. CAn anyone advise pls? Sent a LBA to LL re non-protection and return of deposit and court proceedings. Heard nothing back within 14 days then receive a letter from the LL's solicitor asking me not to instigate court proceedings for a week as they'll be in a position to answer the "issues" i raised then.They threatened that if I don't comply then they'll produce the letter to the court when the issue of costs arises if not before! I thought that in the case of non-compliance with the TDS rules that I could not be liable for LL's costs? Any other pointers welcome. Thanks Bit of background. Left the property a few months ago but after the 6th May deadline for TDS compliance.
  3. Does anyone have an idea what commencing action will cost? I've seen wildly varying figures for use of the N208 form from £175 to £000's If there is non-protection by May 6th 2012 and no info provided, then isn't it an open and shut case - never that simple I know?! Is a defendant given the right to counterclaim, given that they either have or have not followed the legal obligation? Thanks in advance.
  4. Thanks. I'll try that and see where it gets me.
  5. I don't mean to be rude, but I think due care and attention to process has to be made before making comments here. 1) I followed the company complaints process. 2) This, having failed, led me to follow the Ombudsman's process. This commits the telecoms provider to the proposed outcome which in my case was an apology and the eradication of any "disputed" outstanding balance, i.e. it was challenged! 3) One surely can't put a blemish on someone's credit record without notifying them of a debt and warning them of what you plan to do. In this case, I would have picked it up. 4) It is not incumbent of me to pay regular visits to credit reference agencies and pay for the privilege of doing so on the off chance that someone makes a spurious and legally in enforceable claim against me?! 5) my finances are managed by the fact that I pay all my bills and have many years consistent and complete payment records on credit with the exception of this spurious and malicious isolated sum of £14! This, consistent with the general incompetence of the company in question which later resulted in a regulatory fine, should not under any circumstances given rise to this outcome, for which they should surely be held to account. I have simply asked for advice, which, if you don't feel qualified by experience to answer, I would find it more helpful if you kept general opinion withheld. Thanks all the same. 3)
  6. Sorry. What do you mean by a precursor? If they have put a stain on my record that is without merit then isn't that sufficient? They sign up to Otelo voluntarily so presumably they have to abide by their rules?
  7. Then surely they could be in for some serious compensation claim. Would it come up with Kroll reference searches and lead to things such as higher APR's on credit cards? Should I write to them with a letter before action saying, "it's come to my attention..."
  8. Thanks, The reason I didn't get back in touch was because Otelo had informed me and Talktalk that they were to write off the amount etc, so until I checked with a credit reference agency yesterday, I had no idea that they had not followed the direction given. I made a complaint with them at the time and followed that up by contacting Otelo.I think a court would find this reasonable? My question is whether this could have affected my credit rating, job applications etc during the period? Also, what route I should take to get them to remove it and if I would therefore be entitled to compensation, how I would go about obtaining it?
  9. Thanks, but presumably if they have been instructed to by the Ombudsman and have agreed to and not followed through with this instruction, then they are in breach. Furthermore, if I have received no notification of an outstanding balance, and/or they have breached the terms of their contract to supply me with Broadband, then what you've said doesn't apply? Shouldn't I be eligible for compensation for this smear on my credit record that has been wrongfully applied? Thank you
  10. I thought I would take a look at my credit reference report yesterday. All in good order until I got back to 2005/06 where I noticed that Carphone Warehouse via a Talktalk contract I had for my Broadband at the time registered a debt/late payment and default on me for the contract I held with them. It took some digging but i seemed to remember that this was in the early days of talktalk when they had some appalling customer service experiences involving non-delivery of services and misinformation of service staff, for which I think they were eventually fined by the regulator? I also remember complaining through Otelo and getting the usual substandard investigation and outcome whereby all the telecom provider has to do is say they have no record of any correspondence and they get let off with a derisory ca. £30 penalty whilst i am required to draw blood out of a stone when providing the specifics of my case. I did however, get this verdict which included them writing off money which I was previously supposed to pay for a service I didn't have! Talk talk had originally even started charging me prior to connecting my Broadband! What can I do so Talktalk, now merged with Tiscali I think, will remove this and how can I obtain compensation for the fact that this has been on my credit record for 5 years? Thanks for your help in advance.
  11. Thanks, I think I'm unlikely to do the former at the moment, but could you tell me the downside risk of being unsuccessful at the latter? I assume that by suing, you mean to make an N208 claim for recovery of the deposit and the associated penalty?
  12. Thanks, With reference to this though, I should also mention that I've been served with a Section 21 notice which states that it is for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (Periodic). This would seem to fall within one of the stipulations listed by the section of the HA 2004 you provided a link to. If the LL believes it to be an AST, and has issued notice in line with this, then doesn't that support my assertion that they should have protected the deposit?
  13. I'm not sure about the reference you make to the Act. It has been updated under the localism bill with effect from 06/04/12. I did read this though on the DCLG site which might seem to indicate the necessity of protection. "Landlords with existing common law tenancies which will become assured shorthold tenancies when the rental threshold is increased, will not need to protect their tenants' deposits in a recognised scheme immediately, although we would recommend that it is good practice to do so. They will, however, need to protect the deposit if the tenancy is renewed on or after 1 October, or if a new deposit is taken. We do not consider that deposits taken before 1 October will need to be protected as these were not taken in connection with a shorthold tenancy and therefore do not meet the criteria for protection specified in the Housing Act 2004. Ultimately, however, it is for the courts to decide when deposits should be protected and we are unable to give a definitive interpretation of the legislation or speculate on how the courts might find in any particular case." Presumably, it is renewed, even if it is on a periodic basis? There doesn't seem to be any discretion in terms of the fact that I now rent under the terms of an AST. I would hope the fact that the LL was given notice of the change in legislation and deposit requirements to work in my favour where interpretation of the law is required?
  14. Thanks. My research seems to flag a possible issue with the application of the change in legislation to a periodic tenancy where the deposit was paid prior to the changes in legislation, firstly in October 2010, and subsequently on the 6th April 2012, the latter of which appears to be the one that gives me best hope of recourse. I'm wondering if the periodic nature of the tenancy and the fact that no new deposit was taken after Oct 2010 could provide a loophole for a LL?
  15. When I moved in to my apartment in March 2009, it was on a Common Law Tenancy basis for 12 months, the rent at the time being greater than the £25k threshold. I was then asked to renew by the Landlord as they said their bank required them to have a signed agreement as a condition of their mortgage, whereas I had suggested just rolling the contract on on a periodic basis. I also informed the landlord that from October 2010, our tenancy would revert to an Assured Shorthold and they would be required to protect the deposit. We signed a 6 month extension to the end of September 2010 as a result. When it came to this the landlord did not ask for a renewal of the agreement, conflicting with the previous statement that they needed to have a signed agreement as a condition of the mortgage. As I understand it, whilst the tenancy as a legal contract therefore changed to an Assured Shorthold from October 2010, it was I suspect on a periodic basis. Whilst the advice from the Department for Communities and Local Government recommends that all deposits under AST's are protected, I'm not sure there is any case law yet that would suggest, given our contractual history, that we are eligible for the 3x deposit penalty after May the 5th, because our landlord has not notified us of it being protected, nor under which scheme? I would be delighted if you could inform me otherwise? I think I read somewhere that as a result of the Localism Act that there are changes which imply that all AST's now have to have protected deposits? Thanks in advance for any help.
×
×
  • Create New...