Perhaps you should actually read and understand the cases you refer to before brandishing them around. In the thread (Zoot case) you refer to, it was resolved by a gesture of good will. The key distinction there is the charges applied with only 2 days remaining on the term. It seems people are being misled into thinking that all the charges can be recovered in full at any stage....its simply not the case. To hold that it does is nothing more than misconceived and negligent.

Perhaps one or two comments by of response are needed (getting very broed). CBanger - Its not me to prove a law doesnt exist...it is for those who claim it does to do so. Mr Shed - please refrain from pathetic threats. Based on the level of competance you have displayed, you clearly are no match for me. Although, if your responses here are anything to go by....it would be an amsuing day out, at your expense. Moving on. You ask me to comment on your reference to law. Here it is: a) The law states that you must return the deposit within a reasonable time period - its in your post of 29th )ctober 06. Before that you said 28 was absolute. In the sme post you backtracked - "This is not written in law, but is decided by the courts". I am a little tired of taking your responses apart. Are you able to go back to my original post and do the same....or do you think it might say the same as what everyone else here seems to concluding??? PS: please let me know when you are ready to file you claim, i'll let you have an address for service...you do know what that means dont you??

Ah....now we are getting somewhere...but first, in response to Cbanger's response...I dont recall it being a condition of this forum that one has to provide evidence of their expertise. I hope that helps settle that point. Onto Mr Shed...we seem to be making some progress.... a) there is no law which says 28 days. You start off stating that the 'law' states 28 days (which it doesnt nor is it absolute, as has been suggested) then you make a huge retreat from that and your earlier comments on the point. I think your response to this point alone clarifies the reason for my taking up this issue. Perhaps you should reconsider who really does have the problem with housing law. Need I say anymore.....I think the above speaks for itself.

Another one who likes to talk and have everyone take it as gospel. You are the one making the assertion so you 'put up', if you are able to. That means to provide a legal basis rather that the standard 'it is so because I said it is..' Is there a legal basis for any of the nonsense you have posted....??

It was I who challenged you to to provide a legal basis for your comments, which you failed to do. Obviously it it was better for you to hide the limits of your ability by taking this step. It seems clear that you have an issue with being asked to provide a basis for your repsonses. It seems to be the general standard on this site (with the exception of a few) that 'its right because I say its right' or because it was in some book someone read. If you're the standard on this site....I have some sympathy for forum users.

Perhaps you are having difficulty understanding A,B and C. Perhaps then I should refer you to Mr Sheds comments who appears to be asserting that it is presumptious to hold that the landlord will not be able to prove the claim.

There are limited situations where this can happen (very rare) but even then you will still have received a notice in one form or another. You need to seek competant legal advice from a solicitor, without delay.

I shall say no more on the point. There is clearly a lack of understanding on key issues. Hearings to determine such applications are not heard, have never been heard in the small claims as they are not applications which are allocated to a track. If thats what you are getting from the book you refer to then it is wrong or it is being misunderstood. Please feel free to provide a legal basis for your assertion....

That appears to be even more misguided. The principle you now refer to has no application in this case.

I'll rephrase...re-read inserting the letters u and before the word likely. Any comments on the other issues raised???

Mr Shed appears to have missed my point entirely. Although I take some comfort in his reference to 'legal basis' which assumes some legal knowledge. Accordingly I invite Mr Shed (or anyone else who can make a valid contribution) to provide a legal basis for: a) the maximum being 28 days b) the standard of evidence required in a civil claim (taking into account the nature of the original question) c) how the absence of an inventory transpires to "you do(EFFECTIVELY) forgo the right to deduct from the deposit, at least in so much as it would not be backed up in court".

Entirely the wrong reasoning but if the Op wants to pursue a claim then good luck.

If this is true then it is an entirel new legal principle.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your reference to the overiding objective and how it ill operate to to prevent a set aside. I'm familiar with the costs rules without needing to resort to the title you recomend. An impotant factor which appears to have been overlooked, as with many novices, the calim has not been allocated to the small claims track and accordingly, applications in the case are not limited to the costs rules of the small claims. You may want to try reading a different title.

There is no absolute maximum of 28 days, it is whatever is reasonable. You will need to wait until you can inspect the damage and obtain quotes. There is no scope for estimating the damage. The absence of an inventory, signed or otherwise does not mean that you forgoe your right to claim damages or that the deposit has to be returned in full. There may also be a clause in your tenancy agreement which allows you to enter the property to inspect it. If so, give the proper notice under the clause and excercise your right of entry for inspection.

Shocking....particulalry such comments which make reference to '7 weeks' and the suggestion that a landlord can just give notice in the absence of a contract/ tenancy. There is a specific process to follow for landlords starting with service of the correct notice. A landlord choosing to evict (subject to very limted exceptions) without following the proper process risks unlawfully evicting a tenant.

You have no basis on which to try and claim it from the local authority. They are not in breach of any duty or obligation owed to you.

I think you may find that the same principles that apply to 'normal' charges do not necessarily apply in the same way to the matter raised.

I think you have been very lucky to have received your deposit in the first instance. Second, you may have been too hasty in filing a claim without pre action communication warning of legal proceedings, interest and costs, and allowing time for a reply. It may have been unreasonable to expect a refund in the short space of time that was allowed. If you want to proceed for the costs alone then you need to satisfy the court that they were reasonably incurred and that all proper steps were taken to avoid litigation. All the points you raise about meeting them in court are of little or no relevance. Bear in mind that if they succeed on these points with their application to set aside the judgment then they are properly entitled to their costs which may exceed the amount you claim is properly incurred.

Theemployer appears to be risking incurring liability for indirect sex descrimination. However, like most matters of law, it is not that straight forward or simple. There is a specific process and your employer may be justified in a refusal if the same can be objectively justified i.e. the needs of the business. You have a greivance procedure which should be used. Be cautious of CAB's as the quality (if any) varies and it really is a question of the luck of the draw when you visit those places.