Just found this, para 6 is interesting and I've pasted it in here (hopefully that's not wrong) http://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/newsletter/february2012/page2.shtml When the new rules come into effect if you fail to protect the deposit/give the prescribed information within 30 days of receiving the deposit then the tenant (or a third party who pays towards the deposit) can claim a penalty. Former tenants are able to make a claim as well. There is a minimum penalty of once times the deposit with a maximum of three times the deposit. The Court is given a discretion and unlike under the old system where there was a mandatory three times the deposit penalty. The Court will take various factors into account such as why you failed to protect the deposit, how long it was before you protected it and so on. Orders for penalties can now be made independently of orders dealing with the deposit itself. >>> This sentence is relevant to our situation >>> If the tenancy is still continuing the Court must order the full deposit to be repaid to the tenant or paid over to the custodial scheme (DPS). Where the tenancy has ended an order to repay must be made and if the landlord (or agent) still holds the deposit an order to repay it can be made in favour of the applicant. Such an order, once the tenancy has ended, can be an order to repay the deposit in all or in part. This leaves it open for the landlord to make a claim on the deposit eg. to claim for rent arrears. And here's another post that scopes out from a 2011 view how the new law will go forwards as regards a tenant making a claim = = = By way of contrast, if the tenancy is continuing, the Court can order that the deposit be paid to the tenant or paid into a scheme within 14 days of making the order. http://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/blog/2012/09/the-tenancy-deposit-scheme-a-further-update/ = = = And another one here. This is the second time I have read that ongoing tenants could be entitled to obtain a refund of the deposit. The sentence below appears in the following link, however, there are no para numbers so I've included it here for clarity. http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/04/18/tenants-legal-making-tenancy-deposit-claim/ = = = A theme prevailing within the articles is that is is (clearly) more beneficial for a tenant to apply for the penalty but exclude the deposit, since an unreturned or unprotected deposit equals no S21 allowability. I quote from here http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2012/07/23/i-havent-protected-the-deposit-what-can-i-do/ "If a section 21 Notice cannot be served this would then mean that a landlord could not rely upon this mandatory no fault ground to bring possession proceedings. A tenant would then find themselves in the position of almost being akin to an assured tenant only able to be made the subject of a possession order if one of the grounds to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 had been made out. " So perhaps my earlier distaste with how the new rules appeared to work needs to be acknowledged as incorrect. = = = So now it appears I have to get my head round how I prepare the penalty claim, which I see is to be made under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules as before. The problem with this, however, is that it appears to be a much more costly route than before. Am I right on this, as some posts refer to costs around £1,500 rather than hundreds?

Thanks for the heads up on this. I have been reading up on the Localism Bill and it would appear that as an existing tenant, whilst I commence an action to obtain return of the deposit, I can do so in respect of a penalty for breaching the timescales ( by over 3 years) and that would be for x1 up to x3 dependant upon what the court felt was correct. It also appears that if the claim is valid a x1 penalty, plus any costs would be the minimum. I'll continue to read up but if anyone else wants to jump in and pop a comment on here feel free. Thanks all UOTE

So, as existing tenants, it appears that we are f@#*ed in that the landlord can keep the deposit in his pocket (as they always did in the past) and unless I want to pour money down the tubes as legal fees there's no financial penalty that the courts can or will apply. I appreciate the invalid S21 issue, however, that's not important, ATM at least. Nice one Mr Government, glad to see you're thinking about surfs not (land)lords for a change! (frustrated) UOTE!

So that's why I was becoming confused when reading 08 and 11/12 posts. Seems like 'the system' is pushing back against tenants (again). Mindful that we are not tenants that have vacated the premises but ongoing tenants, that we cannot sue for the deposit to be returned, however we can commence an action for 1x - 3x that deposit as a penalty. Weird. Are there any links to any example wordings or posts that are specifically post 6 April to provide further guidance? Thanks in advance UOTE

Hello all, I haven't been on CAG for a while (previously related to credit and debt issues), however, I now wish to clarify the situation regarding unprotected deposits. Briefly, we have an AST (commenced Apr '08) that is now continuing as a periodic and the deposit was never protected at it's commencement. We are still tenants, and will be continuing as such for the immediate future, however, we wish to submit a claim for return of the deposit and, if appropriate, for 3x deposit plus any allowable costs and interest charges as well. However, in reading up on here I am somewhat confused as the law which covers this issue appears to have been subject to various case law interpretations and revisions since it's origination. The sticky threads on here all appear to relate to 2008 but later posts seem to contradict some of those earlier comments. There also appears to be issues between submitting a N208 or an N1 claim since one appears to be for purely return of a deposit and the other for a wider claim. I've been reviewing various posts and it looks like whilst previously, being a continuing tenant did not preclude claiming for return of the deposit plus a penalty, now one can only claim for the penalty. For example the following thread provides useful information but it appears out of date when compared to other comments elsewhere. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?126261-TDS-Court-Claims-Wording If someone could perhaps point me in the direction of the relevant posts that can shed any light on this I would appreciate it. Many thanks UOTE

Carl, thanks for the reply and I'm sorry to hear that it's based on what you should have done rather than did do. It's terrible that in 2012 a company can use laws designed to be used with Victorian ships in this way. I've downloaded a copy of the invoice; thanks for that. Rgds UOTE

Too right sillygirl1

Not so much a bump, more of a prompt. There's been over 80 viewings of my post and I just wondered whether anybody would care to offer up any suggestions, even if they are of the 'there's nothing you can do to protect yourself' type. Just like to know I'm the only one on here, if you know what I mean. Thanks and regards UOTE

Thank you Brigadier2cjs, it all rests upon the difference between SB, which is a legal issue, and default date, which is a CRA issue. So a late default can stretch the elapsed period quite a while I would guess. Rgds UOTE

Brigadier2cjs you raise an interesting point: I understood the concept of statue-barring being linked to the 6 year date since last admittance of the debt. However, in your last post you intimate that SB could possibly occur prior to the 6 yr date. Is is possible to explain or state if or when this would occur? Many thanks UOTE.

Yes Brigadier2cjs, they enclosed a wad of papers that purported to 'show' that the debt was valid and collectable. However, since they'd never pressed this point in a court in the last 6 years it was all very immaterial.

I am looking to purchase a car in about a month's time which will be for well under £1,000. It will be cash, not financed. From what I've read on CAG and elsewhere there isn't really anything that a prospective buyer can do to guarantee that, if I purchase via from a private vendor, that the seller hasn't got an outstanding log book loan on the car they are selling to me. I've read on here about some of the steps to take, after the event, but I'm trying to build up a picture of the steps to take before the event. It seems that a combination of an HPI report, plus purchasing via a motor trader declaring themselves as such would be the best way to go, is that correct? If there are any links or tips on here that I've missed, can anyone point me in the correct direction. Or even if there's anyone out there that would be willing to volunteer any thoughts such as, " The next time I buy a car I'll do it THIS way ..." I would really appreciate it. Many tanks UOTE

Thanks for the tips. In the end I went with the pdf route. A nice letter for a Saturday morning, don't you think? StatuteBarred.pdfattached

Thanks rebel and dx100uk for your quick replies and assistance. New attachment coming. Rgds

Sit rep as follows. False entry to be removed. Result! Their letter was dated 2 days after my 14 day Letter Before Action was posted so it is clear they fully understood the position they were in. I will be sending a copy of their letter to the CRA in question and will ask them to confirm the entry is deleted, after all, it would be terrible if the DCA 'forgot' to do what they said they would do Amended copy of their letter is attached for ref. Thanks again guys; if I had gone with my first plan I would have written to the Information Commissioner and from what I have read that could have taken months or years, certainly not just TWO days. Thanks again

Posted today, sit rep to follow ...

Thank you all for your input. I have drafted a Letter Before Action which will be posted by recorded delivery to the MD of the DCA on 3/1/2012. I will place an update on this topic once I hear back from them. Rgds all

Ford, thank you for your post. I downloaded the 2 pdfs. I noted that in "Guidance on defaults" on p19 para 53 the final sentence reads, "The purchase should not affect how long the record is kept. It should be removed six years after the default." So by their rules double defaulting a debt simply because it was purchased is inappropriate behaviour. Thanks for the link

Thanks BRIGADIER2JCS, I feel two letters, to the CRA and DCA highlighting the statuted barred position re the original alleged debt and thus the fabricated status of the current entry are required. All subsequent chasing would be harrassment ( as you mention ) and to not remove the fabricated entry ( unless they can somehow prove it is correct, which it isn't ) would lead them to be liable for an action for compensation. As it stands, I do have another credit card now, however, it carries a high interest rate and there's the distinct probabilty that if I hadn't had this fake entry on my CRA for the last few years I could have obtained a lower interest rate. On this train of thought, how does one put together a financial value when seeking compensation?

Mmm, dx100uk, that sounds reasonable. All they did was provide a standard answer which attempted to avoid any of the points I made regarding the new entry being based upon the first and only credit account. Perhaps I should approach it from both directions: Firstly a second letter to the CRA to restate the fact that the debt was by now statute barred and should not be reported against. Secondly an initial letter to the DCA to request they remove this fake entry from my record. No doubt both will be ignored, however, together they will lend weight to my argument if I need to take it further.

silverfox1961, what's the cost to take them to court if they refuse to remove it? I am currently on Income Support so that might reduce the fees charged. dx100uk, yes, I take the 6 yrs to be wef 09/2005 and that was why I revoked any inference of liability by my holding payments. So, taking both of your themes together, it would appear that I should write to the DCA and demand they explain why this false entry was created in 09/2005 and then defaulted in 2010.

Thanks silverfox1961 and dx100uk for the quick replies. silverfox1961, it sounds like you are suggesting I treat it as if it is a 'normal' debt and I'm ok with that. This has the useful benefit of them having to provide full supporting evidence and if they don't then they would be hard pressed to support keeping the entry live on my record. dx100uk, the account was defaulted in 09/2005. Subsequently, during 01~02/2006 I made 2 token payments whilst reviewing my affairs with my many creditors, and then in 03/2006 I sent the DCA a letter by recorded delivery repudiating any prior statements and re-affirmed the debt was not mine. That was the last financial transaction ever made against the original and unverified debt in question. Many letters have gone to and fro but nothing other than bluster and threats have eminated from them since then. So to me the statute clock should be ticking from 09/2005 or 03/2006 and not certainly 09/2010 as it is at the moment.

Over the last 6 years I have dealt with very many 'problem' entries on my credit reports, however, I have now found that one exists that is both false and blatantly a result of 'double-defaulting' by a DCA, but the CRA refuses to remove it. I believe the next step is to involve the Information Commissioner (IC), however, I would like some feedback or suggestions from others on here as to whether I should do this now, or write once more to the CRA to request/demand that they do more than they have done so far. I am unsure whether this second approach would appear fairer if/when I then have to contact the IC. I also wondered whether there is a draft template on CAG that someone could suggest I could use. To explain briefly, it would appear that I had a credit card which was defaulted in 09/2005 for just over £10,000 and would then have stayed my credit report until 09/2011. Other similar problem entries have come and gone over time and I expected this to follow the same pattern. However, when I pulled my 3 reports in 11/2011, although that original credit card entry had by then disappeared, a report from one CRA showed an entry, started in 09/2005 for the same value and with a subsequent default date in 09/2010. This false entry would therefore stay on my account until 09/2016. The name of the DCA who had raised that entry in 09/2005 was the same DCA who have been chasing me for the credit card that was defaulted in 09/2005. I have received correspondence from that particular DCA since 2005 and have always strongly denied that the original credit card account was mine. In every item of their correspondence, up to and including their most recent in 10/2011, they have always referred to the original credit card by name and quoted the corresponding 16 digit card no. They have never once advised me that I have opened a new credit account with them (which I would obviously have known about!) and it therefore appears to me to be a case of being 'double-defaulted' for no other reason except to damage my credit rating. When I wrote to the CRA to dispute this fake entry they replied with the usual stock answers of “ ... coy x has investigated .. no problems ... get in touch with DCA...”. Naturally the (false) information which I had disputed was going to be left unchanged (surprise, surprise). So, do I write back to the CRA to rebuff the brush-off I have been given and if so what is the best way to do this? Should I also write to the DCA to mandate them to prove their fake entry is actually valid? Perhaps I need to do this so that, if I subsequently write the the IC, I can show that I provided the DCA with an opportunity to correct the fake entry they placed upon my credit report. Alternatively, should I now write to the IC to ask them to investigate and help to delete a false and unsubstiantated entry from my credit account. Please note that I am NOT attempting to dispute an allegedly valid credit agreement but to have a double-defaulted entry removed from my credit record. I have dealt with most of my other credit related items now but have not previously come across such blatant fabrication. BTW you guys on CAG have been great. Over the last 6 years I have dealt with 20+ different apparent debts and over 60 collection companies covering a total amount somewhere north of £70k and now this is the ONLY one left on my 3 credit reports, and it’s false! So if you too are being hassled by DCA's please believe me when I say, 'Stick with it. This stuff works.' So, come on guys, how do I hit them where it hurts? Thanks in advance UpOverTheEyeballs

When I first posted I was annoyed that BT was charging me separately for the landline and the broadband and had never suggested combining the two. A combined package would have been more economical. However, I have now been informed about BT Basic, which changes the issue somewhat. Clearly this would be the most appropriate landline service, assuming I am eligible, (which the benefits we recieve should mean so) and then we would need to pay for a separate broadband service with BT or another provider. I never knew the BT Basic existed so I was only comparing what we pay now with an all-in-one package. Yup, I was confused! I'll speak to the BT Basic team later today to see what I can sort out for the landline and ask what they suggest about the broadband. I don't really want to move providers with all the porting issues or setting up new e-mail addresses etc, I'd rather just keep the costs down as low as we can. Thanks to all for such a quick response, it was sooo fast. rgds UOTE

Thanks pt 2 - have printed off the info on BT basic, so much less expensive. Now I need to find out whether there's a way to obtain a refund for any overpayments, since we've been in receipt of benefits for about 3-4 years now. rgds UOTE