If he had put the deposit in a scheme you would have been notified when he made a claim for the deposit for damage and cleaning etc. So obviously not in a scheme. You are in a very good position. I would just file a claim for the deposit not being held in a scheme. He cannot deny this. I am assuming you have witnesses willing to testify and / or some sort of written evidence to show the deposit was paid and or that it has now been spent on the repairs and cleaning. If he has put any of that in writing you have a very good claim for return of your deposit. Now you have suggested that there was some cleaning to be done and some damage / unpaid bills too. (However, utility companies do not pursue the landlord for the tenants debt, so he will not be out of pocket for those. He should have informed these companies of your contact details, as it is the landlords responsibility to inform them when people arrive and leave, regardless if you have already done so). This may well be taken into consideration when the ruling is made when it goes to court. However if there was no inventory, then it will be for the landlord to prove the original condition of any damaged items, unpaid bills and cost of cleaning etc. To be honest he sounds like bit of a cowboy and hoping to just ignore your repeated requests for the return of your deposit with some proof of legitimate deductions. If you left in June last year I would file the claim now. You sound like you have already made contact numerous times to no avail, but maybe one more letter (LBA) sent recorded with 7 days to reply from date of letter, then go to the court on day 8. Don't wait any longer. The DPS was set up to protect people like you from landlords like this one, and for all it's good intentions is obviously not sufficient without following through with a court claim.

Many years ago they changed the law with regards to insurance cover. It used to be only whilst driving so you had to park the vehicle off the road if it no insurance, this was changed and means the person who has parked it is still responsible for it, on the road or off. However if you drive your own vehicle the insurance then reverts to cover you on your vehicle leaving the parked one without cover, so it could then be classed as uninsured, but then that is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.. My policy clearly states under driving other vehicles 'Third party cover only for the use of another vehicle in my possession ' - plus the normal gumpf of not belonging to or hired to and must be with the owners permission. As company cars or car pool vehicles and hire vehicles are only covered when actually in use, it questions how these will be affected too. Hire car companies are not going to be sorning and re-taxing every time a car is returned then hired out days later.

Hi Zaphod27, I think this actually allows the vehicle to stay taxed so long as a person driving it is insured, eg. using their own third party insurance to drive the vehicle. I will definitely be keeping a copy of this in my wallet. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/22 (1) 144A (5) Section of relevance below, as a vehicle being used by someone else is covered even when parked. 22 Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements (1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 144 insert— “144A Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements ....(5) Point (5) below clearly states; (5) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle. So, if a policy is in force by anyone using the vehicle the minimum conditions have been met under the current law, and no offence of keeping a taxed vehicle uninsured exists. Basically if I use my fathers car my insurance covers me to drive this vehicle on third party cover, therefore the vehicle is covered while being used by me, and no offence of the vehicle being uninsured exists. He can allow this vehicle to have no insurance of it's own as it's being used by me. If I subsequently park it on the road I am the one responsible for the vehicle under the current law. Therefore the minimum requirements of insurance are met, whilst in my use. This only applies if you have given permission to someone else to use your vehicle. I often drive other cars not insured by me and specifically make sure my policy covers me for this. I can see a lot of insurance documents being copied and sent to DVLA to prove the user at the time has the minimum insurance therefore the vehicle is covered, which will inundate them with heaps of paperwork. All I can say, is well done to the government for creating work for civil servants, at the same time as trying to criminalise the law abiding citizens. 144B Exceptions to section 144A offence Clearly states it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all doubt; (9) A person accused of an offence under section 144A of this Act is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception; but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply. I have spent weeks reading through all this and all the changes, and as far as I can tell all that has been done is intended to confuse the issue of whether a car is insured. I hope this helps and maybe someone else in working in law can clarify this if they have time.

By my understanding of the DPS once you file a claim for the non protection of the deposit it covers the whole amount of deposit and three times this amount to be paid to you upon winning the case. It is already in your favour as the deposit was not protected and cannot be done so now as you have left the property (I assume). You will receive the amount deducted and further unless proof of damage or reasonable cost to replace items that were in the contract can be proved. You would do better to start your own thread and people on here will do their best to help. Remember - All advice is in best interest but not considered legal advice. You need to supply a bit more info to be able to understand your situation fully to get more feedback. Good luck.

Can't see this is legal even. What if the vehicle is under foreign insurance? It is still insured and quite legal. If someone else has insurance to drive it then again the vehicle is covered by the minimum legal requirements. I see this as a big con and will not stop the problems that should be addressed. Just another tax on the public for cash strapped government. Basic third party insurance and road tax could be on fuel. That way if you buy fuel you have road tax (VED) and third party cover. If people want fully comp then they have the option to pay for this. Problem solved and 90% of DVLA staff could given more appropriate positions, e.g. pot hole repairing. That would keep them very busy for years to come.

Hi Louise 123, Your agreement is for both to adhere to, so yes. Have you tried writing to the agent and pointing this out? I'm sure they will come up with a reason as to why it took so long to send you the report though. If the deposit was held properly in a scheme then you can contact them. Also start your own thread then you will get more response to your problem. We need more details so expect questions and do your best to answer. Good luck.

Some sort of contract is definitely right. Your solicitor should have advised you of costs such as this and given you a copy of the lease with the terms and conditions. It seems a bit odd that you own the house freehold but the garage is leasehold. Make sure they actually have a right to charge you anything as they will send out demands even when they are not supposed to and many people just pay up without checking it thoroughly. Try to find out who the freeholder of the garage is if you want to obtain the freehold and then be rid of Solitaire. By the way if the freeholder is Freehold Managers Plc or Freehold Managers (Nominees) Ltd, then it's part of the Solitaire. They won't want to sell the freehold as it's a money maker for them, but you will be able to do a RTM (Right To Manage) to remove them from service charges. Not sure what your circumstances are or if this is a communal area and garage and shared with other residents. If so you need 51% or more to want RTM and then serve notice on Solitaire. You need to set this up properly but there are plenty of threads with helpful advice. Also some other management companies are aware of there tactics and willing to help you (for a fee) but far more honest too. Make a complaint directly to your solicitor if you are sure you were not advised of this and you can contact the Law Society too. Good luck.

Hi tomwm. In my opinion it would be worth avoiding anything to do with Solitaire or their parent company. I still have an ongoing dispute with them and trying to remove them from the maintenance but Estates & Management are the ground rent collectors, again part of the Consensus group that are Peverel/Solitaire, and each company making things as difficult as possible. I now only send letters and payment to them by signed for delivery. Despite their constant demands for money, when they get sent only what is owed they don't bank it then try to say it was not sent. However once informed that it was signed for they quickly bank the cheque but still add late charges or admin fees. I am currently still waiting for a reply to my last letter sent in August 2010. If you can, bail out now. And do any research you can yourself into any property management company as well as your solicitor before buying. Also try asking a few residents in the same area what the management company are like too. It's a sad situation for the current lease owners who are going to find selling their properties more difficult as the actions of this company get wider internet publication. I know I would have stayed well clear and will avoid any further properties where their name pops up on any documents.

The amounts are very convenient as it comes to £200 exactly but the list shows what I would imagine to take more than one hour to do. Give the cleaning company a call and ask for a breakdown & how many cleaners attended. Inform them that they may be called to court to explain the invoice. Any discrepancies in what has actually been done needing to be explained in the small claims might very well see a refund coming soon. I can see a need for some dusting after 8 days but that is not down to you. Dust will settle over a period of 8 days, but that means they never checked it when you left. Was it in the contract terms about admin charges - £58.00 - being charged? As I recall all charges must be declared in the terms that are being followed by the letting agent. If they have had the letters then it looks like it will be a trip to the small claims next.

Send them a letter before action asking for a full refund. State you have witnesses to verify the flat was clean and tidy. Don't worry about the photo's or lack of. Give them two weeks to refund you in full. Also ask them for an exact copy of the cleaners invoice so you can question the cleaners directly as to what was cleaned. I do not believe they have paid that much for one hours general cleaning either. This seems like another one of those scams just to make money from your deposit, as a reputable firm would have been there on the day you left to check this in your presence allowing you to verify any problems. If you are serious about getting the money back be prepared to take action via the small claims court. Three witnesses would be very good for you especially as no one from the letting company bothered to go and check as you left or responded with details of their investigation. They want you to just go away so they can ignore it all.

a.tenant1987 If you have already over paid then just pay the difference for this month. If you have already paid this month too then you entitled to it back immediately and the damage deposit when you leave (providing you have not broken anything). You really should have started your own thread for more responses and help.

Get a copy of the report from the letting agency stating it was fine. If it was not in the contract then you cannot be charged for something - this would be equivalent to betterment - not replacing broken or missing items. First write demanding back any money outstanding and include details of what is not covered under the agreement. Be prepared to take the landlord to court and include a letter before action.Tell them you have pictures of the day you left showing the condition, but get a copy of any report from the letting agency first, they should be OK with that from what you have put. Was it three separate agreements or just one signed by all three? Any legitimate charges are to split three ways if the same agreement was for all three.

As my understanding of the TDS non compliance in a word "Yes". You only claim the outstanding amount owed, court fees (if applicable) & deposit X 3. 2100 + 132 + court fee

I am a landlord and this is my opinion of the rules with regard to TDS. As far as I am aware once the tenancy has ended the landlord cannot then protect the deposit in a scheme. All must be returned to you or you can make a claim. This should be for the amount still owing and 3x deposit. In fact the landlord should never had held your deposit unprotected. I would put this in writing to the landlord as a letter before action giving 'X' number of days for full return of amount still outstanding or you will take legal action to claim this amount plus 3x deposit as allowed by failing to comply to TDS. Preferably send it recorded delivery or get a witness to observe you hand to the landlord in person. With some luck it will be returned, but be prepared to use the courts. Keep any and all documents you have as evidence including emails. If he/she pays your deposit back now, you will not be able to get the 3x penalty because there will no longer be "a person who it appears to the court is holding the deposit or any part of." The return now would be a good result for you without the need for a court claim. Good luck and keep reading through the threads, there is a lot of useful information and letter templates to help you. I hope this helps.

Hi PeteK, You have posted in your thread as well - Deduction from deposit-deposit not protected - I have replied to you there.

Hi ichayan, Send the letter to the letting agents addressed to the letting agents. Also include a letter inside addressed to the landlord. Make sure you put on the bottom of the letter addressed to the letting agents that you have enclosed a letter for the landlord. Advise the letting agents working on behalf of the landlord that you expect them to deal wit it and forward any relevant information to the landlord they operate for. This way by letting the letting agents know you hold them responsible as they had/have a vested interest by letting the property, I bet they will make sure the letter is passed on. In short, start with where you can get the letter delivered as the first point/person responsible for acknowledgment and receipt of your letter. Make sure you only put the name and address of the letting agent on the envelope. After it has been signed for they will want to move the issue to the landlord so start doing the work for you. If you paid the deposit to the letting agent they will have to prove it was passed to the landlord. Correct me if I am wrong but this what I am assuming happened. They probably know the landlord is a bit dodgy so will not accept mail for him/her. I am currently looking into who will be responsible for the deposit if paid to the agent. At which point does the responsibility go to the landlord only. Would be good for someone else with experience in that field to comment if possible.

Just an update. While searching Ebay I found that PowerplayDirect are now selling as Bevalued on Ebay. Member since: 31-Mar-09 Contact details are: Colin Bassett Powerplay Direct Eastbourne East Sussex BN22 8LD United Kingdom Phone: 01323 418580 Email: jason@bevalued.com There is even a geographic phone number now call, saves on 0870 or 0845 charges.

I would consider this to be their final answer - taken from the post "Yesterday had a final offer £100 as a gesture of goodwill as they are fully in the right and in their words this is the end of it." The insurance company took on the policy which was paid to them, so must honor it in full. They cannot change the terms without notice. Nor choose to ignore part of a claim because they feel like it. they already started off by saying it was not covered then backed down. This goes a long way to showing their approach to dealing with it. Rather than cover the claim as quickly and cost effectively as possible, they have chosen to take the expensive route. That really annoys me as my policy, and yours, will increase too from their incompetence. (Albeit a very small amount).

Sorry to hear you are still having problems. This link has a bit of information about settling a claim at the bottom. http://www.insurancewriteoff.co.uk/ (I'm not trying to advertise anything here just for information purposes from my own searching). The important bit to note is this. "Insurance law in the UK is based on the premise that you should be no worse or better off once a final settlement has been made." As is clear from what you have put this is not the case, but you are now somewhat worse off from the time delay caused directly from the administration of the insurance company. This was out of your control so they are liable for any such costs arising from their actions. Whether they consider this is their policy or not, it is law for you to be compensated for your insured loss. That includes the hire car for time until notification. If they have offered £100 goodwill they already know they are liable. Insurance companies do NOT give money away. Stand firm in asking for the whole file. Do not let them put you off with excuses. You have a right to this information. Put it in writing that if not received then you will take the matter to the courts. The law is on your side here. Until you have heard from the insurance company as to the state of the vehicle, in this case a total loss declared, the car hire or a courtesy car is covered for time until notification. This is 18 days in total in your case. It's not your fault if they take this long to do this. Put the complaint to the ombudsman now anyway as well as continuing your pursuit for full settlement. Point out to the ombudsman that they have proven themselves to be rather slow with getting this settled or supplying information. If you go to court they will have to supply a copy of the complete file so they should just do it now or settle in full.

Yes I think you are right. I have been drafting a letter for the flat owners. As Estates & Management are the freeholders I do not want to just post this through the letter box and it get straight back to the Consensus group / Peverel / Solitaire. I intend to knock on each door and ask if they are the owner or if they would not mind giving me the owners name & address so I can post it direct. I'm hoping all flats leaseholds are nothing to do with Solitaire so I can present what I have with a proposal to the owners with the differences in maintenance costs. This year there was no buildings insurance in place for two months. I found out when asking for a copy of the certificate this year. When it was eventually supplied the date of expiry from the last one to this new starting one was two months. Also the policy price is on it and we have been charged nearly 25% more again. I have the name and address of one other flat owner who also expressed her anger in the charges so I hope there is a good chance to get more than 50% to agree to wanting them removed as managing agents.

In accordance with the directives imposed by your insurer. The equipment is only retained for a maximum length of time before storage/disposal becomes an issue. Actually the terminolgy used would have been 'Beyond Econmical Repair' "State of a repairable item where its estimated repair cost significantly exceeds a certain percentage (when taking into account parts/labour/potential for future related faults)." You state iVal offered you a replacement of poorer quality and lower spec. what machine did you have and what was offered? Did you raise any of the specification issues directly with them? (if you had and it was a valid reason - i.e. you were not trying to push for technology now to be considered redundant by manufacturers - then iVal would have reconsidered thier offer based on your stated needs.) Standard practice; 'Data Recovery' (not retrival) is offered to all policy holders making claims for damaged computers; The fee is payable upfront, however if it fails it is refunded (refund process is automatic). Your requests for return of the hardware would not have been ignored; whilst there was an ongoing claim which you wish to persue; iVal retain possession of the equipment (as per your insurers guidelines) until one of several outcomes arise; 1) You withdraw, 2) Your claim is repudiated, 3) You accept a settlement. In the case of options 1/2 the equipment is returned to you - if requested and if possible. In the case of option 3, the old equipment is disposed off as per EU guidlines. Disposal of the equipment would only occur within the boundrys of these guidelines (unless an accident had occurred - which I'm not ruling out as i do not know you claims specifics). You have accepted a form of settlement; and declined all offers of data retrival - as per 'option 3' above, the equipment would now be your insurance companies property and disposed of accordingly. How can you claim for 'data' which you had no intention of retriving through the offered methods? You had already accepted you may lose the data when agreeing to a collection - and declining the option of data recovery (all part of the collection call script all handlers read word for word). iVal inform you on this call that they accept no responsibilty for any data lost/damaged or if you do not perform either your own backups prior to a collection, or decline iVal's data recovery service. This call would have been recorded (as all calls to and from iVal are) and will be retrivable will little effot on iVals part. You are free to do that in any circumstance; but be aware that your insurer is under no obligation to foot the bill for any actions you opt to take of your own accord. Factually incorrect again; Powerplay (powerplaydirect.com) / BeValued & Laptop-PC-Spares are all located on the same business park, two of the above companies even share the same industrial building. The parent company of each of these may be the same, and I'm sure they would not dispute this. However each is a seperate company in its own right; seperate staff, payroll, management, processes, business models, clients etc etc. I'm not responding to 'have a go'; as my profile freely admits I am an employee at iVal - i just wanted to state some clear facts; as evidently your post is extremely one sided and opts to leave certain particulars out. To my knowledge iVal has no cases in any courts against it (previous or current) - but then maybe its not my place to know such things. All the best. Last edited by pubno1; 19th January 2010 at 21:37. ------------ No offer was ever accepted. The claim was very much still ongoing. This was ruled as unfair practise. I still had the right to an independent inspection while the claim was 'ongoing'. Yes your post was recorded and in fact it was rendered ready to post on here after the court case outcome. Just had to add this last bit. This claim was ruled in my favour. And a cheque in settlement has been received now from iVal. I am now in the process of writing a blanket letter to all insurance companies I can find linked to using iVal for repairs. All iVal had to do was act in an honest manner then the claim should have been without problem. This letter will also get posted on the internet when sent. After the post by daz1977 I am wondering just how good their repair team are. Is this a one off? I definitely will never allow the insurance company to decide where my property goes for repair now. A point to clarify that no intention is made to blemish any good computer repairers that work in the insurance industry. It is recognised that many do a very good job regardless of their duties or position.

A few months have gone by and I won the court case. J.B. Leitch & Co. were the solicitors representing Solitaire property management. They did not even bother to show up in court. As you can expect the judge was not impressed so 10 minutes later their claim against me for work I had to finish and deducted from the maintenance charges was ruled in my favour. I even got expenses for travelling etc. Now the expenses were forwarded by cheque to me from their solicitors within a few days. No paperwork from Solitaire / Peveral though. That was October 2009. At the beginning of January 2010 I receive the request for maintenance from Solitaire including the amount denied to Solitaire in the court ruling of October 2009. So I write a letter informing them of this and that if it is not corrected I will be invoicing for any future letters, time spent & telephone calls. Two letters back just ignoring this but adding administration charges to money not owed, then a letter stating they have paid the costs to me. This letter was three months after mine to them and they blatantly ignore the amount ruled against them. I have sent another letter with an invoice this time and it will be paid ( I will deduct it from the maintenance as they always ask for service charge reserves which are not yet paid ) asking them to correct the account or I will return to the courts as they are not following the ruling. They really do try it on. Also the main entrance to all the flats now has broken door which does not close any more. Maintenance is somewhat lacking even if the charges are not. I await for the reply from Solitaire. I even got a persons name in the last reply this time, so maybe.....it's a real person. I'll let you know what the reply is.

Have you tried sending a PM? I would try that or wait for a reply to the thread.

I currently have a claim against iVal. This is for disposing of my laptop before claim was settled and the loss of all data from their disposal. To date they have supplied no evidence to defend the claim. They did try to avert the court action by lying to the court about company ownership. This was quickly proved as a false claim by iVal showing all linked companies and addresses to the court. I would write a letter to the Manager of Barclays insurance giving 14 days before you intend to take legal action. Write in with a full claim for the value of the computer and all data / software. Wait for their reply. After 13 days telephone to ask if they intend to reply to if not already replied to. Also state that if no reply is received by the 14th day you will take legal action regardless. They do have a responsibility to reply and address the matter as iVal are their contracted repairers not yours. They will probably say it is iVal that is responsible. At which time just take out a court claim for the amount against iVal for what you have valued everything at. It seems the only way to get any real response is to go this route. And they are selling parts on Ebay trading as pc-laptop-spares. eBay My World - pc-laptop-spares All of their feedback is private to stop you seeing the details. Good luck. Aparently iVal record all phone calls, so point this out to Barclays in your letter.

Just send them a letter stating they have ‘x’ number of days before legal action. Put in the letter that the claim is for the whole amount as the hire car is part of the claim. Make sure you mention you have been reasonable, and that you want the whole file re the claim by return post. If the file is not received by return post you will start proceedings and point out this fact has been ignored on the claim form. Express your concern as to 'the ability to comprehend the matter' for person(s) you have been dealing with, and that you would like the name of the senior manager for this claim by return post as well. Someone will not want their name being issued to you if it goes to court and will start things going correctly. Or else be prepared to go to court and reject any part settlement in writing explaining why. Try not to have any further dealing with them over the phone. If they make an offer over the phone tell them that until it is received in writing you cannot discuss it further, and ask for their supervisor each time you talk. It's hard but this is deliberate to wear you out and make you accept less than a fair settlement amount. You need to put it in writing as you cannot be sure what they are noting down when you telephone. This will avoid any such errors.