Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

TDS claim WON today - some details


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5343 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Brief details...

 

- paid deposit of £600 in March 2006 with LA signing on behalf of absentee LL (resident in Japan)

- new ASTs signed March 2007 and March 2008

- new LA took over March 2008 but left deposit with old LA and unprotected

- old LA sent cheque for deposit to new LA December 2008 with letter advising him to protect and send me information - nothing happened

- started TDS claim January 2009 with LL and LA named as defendants

- moved out March 2009

- LA returned deposit in full at directions hearing in March 2009

 

Long story here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/181073-complicated-tds-case-have.html

 

Full hearing was this afternoon. LL and LA failed to turn up, though LA had written to court to apologise for absence. DJ agreed with all points I made, was very sympathetic, and awarded me £1800. Judgement was entered against LL and LA and if the money is not recieved within 14 days I can enforce against either or both.

 

DJ said deposit should have been protected when AST was signed in March 2008, and certainly when LA recieved the cheque in December 2008. Also said that she did not need to order return or protection as that had been fulfilled by now, but that was able to award penalty anyway as the legislation had not been complied with.

 

Judge thanked me :D for 'all the hard work' I had put into the preparation and said that the evidence and documents I provided had been very interesting and helpful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! Thats great news. Knock another one up for the tenants. Good to see the Judge didnt allow the 'must also' clause to spoil the party also.

 

What documents did you provide as part of your hard work? Just curious.

 

Good luck getting the judgement though, it sounds like winning the case is only half of the battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Documents - all ASTs, various letters regarding deposit, receipt for original deposit, letter from Shelter advising me that the deposit should be protected, copies of letter and cheque forwarded to new LA.

 

Also provided details of some previous judgements that had gone the way I was hoping this claim would, and copy of the Govt guidance on pre-April 2007 deposits.

 

Am hoping LA pays up within 14 days - surely to ignore CCJ would be disastrous for his business? He is also property developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the 'must also' clause?

 

Jeff

 

Well done! Thats great news. Knock another one up for the tenants. Good to see the Judge didnt allow the 'must also' clause to spoil the party also.

 

What documents did you provide as part of your hard work? Just curious.

 

Good luck getting the judgement though, it sounds like winning the case is only half of the battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Housing Act 2004 states that...

 

" (3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—

(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,

within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order."

 

Some judges have taken this to mean that if neither 3 a) or b) can be ordered (for example if deposit has been protected or returned by the time the case is heard), they cannot order 4 as it is prefaced by "must also".

The judge in my case said she was in agreement with my claim that it was a strict liability penalty for non-compliance and that the return of the deposit (after court proceedings had been started) did not alter the fact the law had not been complied with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil,

 

AS this is exactly the defence that my landlord is using, that because he has returned the deposit (after the claim was lodged and 5 months after we moved out) that the 214(4) cant be applied due to the must also issue.

 

Is there anything pubic I can get about your judge's ruling that I can use as part of my case? Do rulings get published?

 

You help would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is excellent news. Very glad for you. Just shows that the system can work, but I suspect the result had a great deal to do with your careful preparation. Well done!

 

"Also provided details of some previous judgements that had gone the way I was hoping this claim would, and copy of the Govt guidance on pre-April 2007 deposits."

 

I would also appreciate it if you could PM with some of these details. I am putting together a file of information to help advise others in your situation and would be grateful for any such information. Thanks

Kentish Lass

Information given is based on my knowledge and experience and is not to be considered as legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also appreciate it if you could PM with some of these details. I am putting together a file of information to help advise others in your situation and would be grateful for any such information. Thanks

 

Kentish, I have details of about 6 cases, all in favour of the tenant, and all differing by various degrees also. Will send via PM next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kentish, I have details of about 6 cases, all in favour of the tenant, and all differing by various degrees also. Will send via PM next week.

 

Thanks to you both. I am positive that one of the reasons DevilwearsPrimark won is because she provided the judge with good documentation and examples of other cases which assisted the judge in making her decision.

Kentish Lass

Information given is based on my knowledge and experience and is not to be considered as legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UPDATE - no money arrived within the time ordered so i issued an order for LA to attend court for questioning on his financial affairs to give me an idea how best to enforce.

 

The day after this was served, he sent the court a cheque for the full amount, which is now being forwarded on to me.

 

:D

 

Thanks to everyone who advised me - I'm doing my best to help others with their cases now I have all this information sloshing round my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in process of filling out the N208 claim form and would be very grateful if you could possibly PM me with details of previous judgements/court cases as I would like to attach them for consideration by the court? Would that be possible please? Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Devilwearsprimark and everyone,

 

I am in a similar situation and want to take my ex LL to court, I would also be very grateful if you could PM me with some previous judgements and court cases too. Mt deposit was paid february 2007, but we have renewed our AST's in August 2007 and August 2008. I'm desperate for some information and all these court forms are a dyslexic nightmare.

Thankfully we have a new home now.

 

was it form N1 or N208?

 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lodged the N208 Claim Form (CPR Part 8) with the County Court this afternoon with all the proofs etc. The cost was £150. Yes, it can be quite daunting filling out so much paperwork which has to be precise, but with the help and guidance of the forum members you will not go wrong. I received the help of Kentish Lass and DWP and am grateful to them both. I will PM you the previous cases as sent to me, together with a few extra I found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What happens if the tenant has a tenancy agreement that was taken out before 6 April 2007 but he continues occupying the property after the end of that tenancy?

 

 

If the tenant decides to remain in his existing rented property beyond the initial fixed term of six months, how the deposit is treated will depend on how the tenancy is continued:

  • For a statutory periodic tenancy - ie the tenancy continues with no new agreement - TDP will not apply, as no new AST will have been created.
  • For a replacement/renewal tenancy - This is a new AST and so TDP will apply. The deposit previously paid under the earlier tenancy is repayable to the tenant at the end of that tenancy, so it should be returned to the tenant. Alternatively, if the landlord wishes to continue to hold it as security in respect of the new tenancy it must be protected under scheme."

(taken from Treatment of deposits at the end of the tenancy - Housing - Communities and Local Government )

 

That is the Govt guidance relating to pre-2007 deposits. I know lots of people consider it a bit of a grey area and there are opposing views on here and elsewhere, but I went in with the approach that as the law isn't entirely clear, the best interpretation to use is the one the Govt. are making. The judge agreed with me and said it was quite clear how the law was meant to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...