No they wont pay the remaining £600 until I agree to the £200 deduction. I know going to court is a lot of hassle but its a priciple thing. I've been stonewalled so much by the letting agent telling me different thngs and not getting back to me. And then finally telling me how to go about getting the difference via the scheme. Sorry I've not had access to a computer since my last post, which is why I've appeared to go quite. Thanks for you replies.

Thanks Steve_M To answer about the DPS scheme I think they are anti tenant because when you go on their website its like a multi-page advertisement for LL's to use their scheme. Their are countless documents aimed at landlords recovering monies etc, all aimed at the LL perspective. Their are 37 documents in their document library / case study section and only 2 of them are aimed at tenants although 4 or 5 could be described as aimed at both tenants and LL's. Additionally I read a good piece on a the DPS scheme on a website by an industry type expert, see (w w w .propertyinvestorsnetwork.co.uk/avoid-tenancy-deposit-scheme). (sorry I cant paste URLs because of my post count) Some of what this guy said was ; "Looking at it from the tenant’s point of view I would be extremely disappointed with the TDS. The scheme does very little for them from the status quo. The TDS makes the following changes" "Provides a free Alternative Dispute Resolution service (ADR) but nothing is free and the cost of the ADR is going to be passed on to the tenant in increased rent or charges. If I was a tenant I would expect the TDS to champion my cause if my landlord failed to return my deposit. Not so, the TDS providers will only refer a disputed deposit to the ADR if both landlord and tenant so request. Should the landlord refuse to use the ADR the scheme operators will wash their hands and leave the poor tenant to sue in the county court – which brings us back to the main reason why the TDS was introduced in the first place, tenants were reluctant to sue through the courts." "The ADR system is a paper based adjudication, no witness or visits are made. If I was a tenant I would expect that the ADR would, as a minimum, require the landlord to provide justification for withholding my deposit and that someone would examine the case to see whether the landlords assertions were credible and fair. Not so, the tenant must prove the landlord has wrongly withheld the deposit and then the landlord must rebut the tenants case. The TDSL have certainly looked after the interests of their landlords with their ADR scheme. In the County Court the reverse is normally the case, the landlord, in practice, must prove justification for withholding the deposit and the tenant is usually given a sympathetic hearing" An inventory was taken when I moved in and funnily enough it listed the garden area as in poor condition. I also signed a piece of paper, which I assume was a final inventory the day I moved out but the LA wouldn't give me a copy, told me not to worry about it and I would get a copy in the post. He did note the bluetac marks on my sons wall and the 7 or 8 nails in the lounge but told me not to worry about it. I just assumed all was peachy as you have be able to make your home homely, which must include putting up pictures surely. Anyway its not prohibited in the tenancy agreement and the walls needed decorating anyway because you can clearly see the colour difference between the paint and where the pictures have been + I lived there nearly 4 years. No I haven't written to the landlord or agent asking for invoices / written justification as they kept me in the dark for over 3 weeks until I emailed asking where my deposit was, which is when they said they wanted to take £200 off. A lawyer who is a friend of a friend wrote them an email demanding my deposit back and said he would sort it out but he has since turned out to be unreliable so I am having to deal with it myself. It took me 2 weeks to get a copy of the email. Thank you again for your response. Things seems a little clearer. I'll try to come up with a letter today and post it up here so hopefully I can get some input. One quick question. The Landlord is listed as being a company on my tenancy agreement but their is no mention of the company address in any of the documentation I have. Should I write to the L agency requesting the landlords details? I seem to remember seeing in one of the other posts that this information should have been provided by the LA.

Hi all, I could do with some help. Thanks in advance: I rented a flat in November 2007 and the deposit was protected in a scheme. I moved out July this year having been a tenant for just under 4 years. When I left the flat in a very tidy state and having cut back all the overgrown stuff in the garden my LA told me I should get my deposit back in 10 days or so and I thought nothing of it. 3 and a half weeks went by and I was getting a bit fed up so I emailed my LAgent only to receive a response that the landlord wanted to keep £200 or the £800 deposit for decorating and cleaning. Obviously I said I didn't agree and so I have spent the last couple of months arguing the issue with my LA on the phone. In the mean time the person dealing with my case at the LA went on holiday and no one would deal with it in his absence. Finally after waiting and waiting about a week and a half ago the LA told me I could get my deposit back but would have to claim from the DPS scheme with the agreement of the LL and use the scheme to argue the difference so I've been strung along since I moved out in July until very recently only to told then about the scheme. However after looking at the scheme and reading about it, it seems very anti tenant and pro LL so I don't want to go down this route and would like to take the LL to court for my full £800. I understand from reading through the forums that I would need to send a pre-action letter and from reading the forums am I right in that I should use Part 8 or is that just for non-compliance with Statutes on behalf of the LL and LA? At not time have I been given a list of the proposed works the LL said the £200 was to cover. So I don't even know what exactly the money is for apart from being told verbally on the phone when I rang the first time to ask what was happening. I was told that there was bluetac on the wall of my sons bedroom despite the room being so damp and moldy it needs redecorating. That there were some nails holes in the lounge where I put 4 pictures up. I thought I was allowed to make it homely and that after nearly 4 years the landlord would surely redecorate before re-letting the flat. Additionally I was told that the garden needed clearing despite the fact I had cut it all back and that there was mold in the bathroom that needed cleaning. Mold due to damp in the flat. This is what the £200 was for according to the LA. Additionally since renting the flat I have been left without a boiler for 5 weeks, so had no hot water or heating. I had carbon monoxide leak that was left by the boiler engineers and only discovered when another set of engineers engaged to do the yearly inspection even though the boiler was supposed to be out of action. My son has not been able to sleep in his bedroom due to the levels of damp and the garden wall collapsed so I couldn't use the garden for ages. At no time have I been sent a copy of the final inventory. At no time before the flat was re let, which it was within 2 weeks of me moving out, did I get any notice that work was allegedly needed or a breakdown or any notice whatsoever that the LL intended to steal some of my deposit. I am sorry if I have gone on a bit but I wanted to put as much info in as possible without going on too much. Can anyone tell me what I should put in the pre-action letter? I have read the sticky's on the DPS scheme but the pre-action letter seems to be structured for the LL failing to use the scheme. Also it seems to me that they cant just come up with figures for the work and notify me they are going to withhold £200 of my deposit after the flat has been re-let without giving me a chance to do anything about it, especially as there is no basis whatsoever for their claim. If I can get some help on the pre-action letter first then maybe, hopefully I can get some help on the claim? Any help would be appreciated greatly. Nick

Thanks Dadofholly I've seen this site but have not watched the videos I'll make time to watch them. I don't blame you for not debating these issues though. The monetary system is so complexly written and hidden from the general public that its extremely hard to get to the truth. Trying to unwrap the various layers of statutes etc when looking at the legal/banking system and the Law Merchant etc is almost impossible for the average citizen. There are a number of Acts referenced in books written throughout the 20th century (some written in the 1870/80/90's etc) that are not on the Government web site listing acts of parliament ( w w w .opsi . gov. uk/ acts. htm]) and one wonders why? It certainly doesn't help when talking about conspiracies etc. Unfortunately I don't think the conspiracy will ever be stopped dead in its tracks all the time banks can at the push of a button or the stroke of a pen, create money out of thin air! As far as the BOE goes I'm not sure what I believe but I tend to think that its owned by private shareholders with the appearance that its it is owned by the government (should read people but that's not been the case for some time). You right though. There is not point getting into a debate about it because it just wastes our time and efforts when we could be doing something much more constructive like trying to peal away the layers. Consider this though. If the Government owns the BOE then why are we faced with austerity and why are we trillions of £ in debt to international banks and investors? Why when we bailed out most of the British banks and own a percentage of these banks do we owe these banks along trillions of £'s? These are interesting questions but I doubt we will ever get the answers unless there is a fundamental change in the way that we are governed. Whilst political parties can receive donations from big business and promote big business buddies to all the important decision making entities and all the entities that distribute grants, funds and contracts etc things will never change. Sorry to sound so depressing! Again thanks for the link. I'll take time out to study the videos. Nick

Dadofholly I think reading some of your posts you are indeed a monetary reformist so God bless you. If I'm right in that assumption, I think you'll agree that Douglas Carswells bill doesn't go nearly far enough. I think you'll find that it is still a private company owned by private shareholders. It just has the illusion of being state controlled although by its own charter most of the important people making the decisions are put there by the various very high ranking banking and industrial families such as the Rothchilds and the Standard Oil interests etc. So even though most people in this country of hours believe the bank is owned by the people this is wrong. The system is completely out of control. The Fed stopped reporting M3 money a couple of years ago because the debt of the US is so massive the only way to hide it is to stop reporting M3. Its an interesting discussion. I've been trying to peel back the layers for a couple of years so I suppose I'm nearly at the end of my newbe status as a monetary reformist. Even so and having spent thousands of hours reading about this and researching it the layers go so deep its extremly hard to get the truth. Not unlike the legal system, which was invented and spread by the banksters. Charlie your dead right.

Sorry if I'm covering ground already trod. There is so much info on this amazing site I tend to go bleary eyed trying to find answers to specific questions. Hey ho here we go!! When does an agreement as per S61 become executed? For example I have an agreement that was signed on the 7th of a month in front of the dealer who I assume is an agent as its a car makers finance company and its a proper dealership but the terms on the back specifically state the dealer is not an agent. Forgive me for now but I digress and I cant remember the relevant section of the CCA but will add it. Anyway my agreement is signed by me on the 7th but not by the dealer. I get taken to court and I notice that the agreement supplied by the solicitors is unreadable in parts (i.e. not easily legible in parts) and is signed by the finance company on the 19th. I thought by reading section 61 that its either be signed by the finance company and posted to me to sign. Or I sign it. Its then signed by finance company within 7 days and then sent to me within a further 7 days. I didn't ever receive a copy from finance company and only got an awful photocopy with a signature dated the 19th (13 days after mine) when i got it as part of the claim. I've read S61 and S58 which is referred to in S61 and for the life of me I cant work out if the agreement was executed or by reason of S61 isn't. From what I've read I honestly don't think it is. Here is the relevant section/s 61.- (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless- (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. (2) In addition, where the agreement is one to which section 58(1) applies, it is not properly executed unless- (a) the requirements of section 58(1) were complied with, and (b) the unexecuted agreement was sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer by post not less than seven days after a copy of it was given to him under section 58(1), and © during the consideration period, the creditor or owner refrained from approaching the debtor or hirer (whether in person, by telephone or letter, or in any other way) except in response to a specific request made by the debtor or hirer after the beginning of the consideration period, and (d) no notice of withdrawal by the debtor or hirer was received by the creditor or owner before the sending of the unexecuted agreement. (3) In subsection (2)©, " the consideration period " means the period beginning with the giving of the copy under section 58(1) and ending- (a) at the expiry of seven days after the day on which the unexecuted agreement is sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer, or (b) on its return by the debtor or hirer after signature by him, whichever first occurs. (4) Where the debtor or hirer is a partnership or an unincorporated body of persons, subsection (1)(a) shall apply with the substitution for " by the debtor or hirer " of " by or on behalf of the debtor or hirer ". 62.- (1) If the unexecuted agreement is presented personally to the debtor or hirer for his signature, but on the occasion when he signs it the document does not become an executed agreement, a copy of it, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him. (2) If the unexecuted agreement is sent to the debtor or hirer for his signature, a copy of it, and of any other document referred to in it, must be sent to him at the same time. (3) A regulated agreement is not properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed. 63.- (1) If the unexecuted agreement is presented personally to the debtor or hirer for his signature, and on the occasion when he signs it the document becomes an executed agreement, a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him. (2) A copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be given to the debtor or hirer within the seven days following the making of the agreement unless- (a) subsection (1) applies, or (b) the unexecuted agreement was sent to the debtor or hirer for his signature and, on the occasion of his signing it, the document became an executed agreement. (3) In the case of a cancellable agreement, a copy under subsection (2) must be sent by post. (4) In the case of a credit-token agreement, a copy under subsection (2) need not be given within the seven days following the making of the agreement if it is given before or at the time when the credit-token is given to the debtor. (5) A regulated agreement is not properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed. Any ideas?

Thanks for the link dadofholly. A subject very dear to my heart. *@"$@@ banksters

Hi I'm a Newbe. I've been tearing my hair out looking for this site having joined ages ago but I forgot the name. Please excuse the length of this post I will try to be as quick as possible. I am extremely grateful in advance for any advice given. I had a hire purchase agreement originally with Renault Financial Services, which then became RCI Financial Services (2/7/07). The agreement was to run until March 2007 but shortly before this with a couple of payments to go my marriage broke down and I had a break down also. I suffered from severe clinical depression until about 11 months ago when my condition and my outlook finally started to improve. RCI through Bermans LLP took me to court to reclaim the van. At the time of default I the total amount payable under the agreement was £17093.51 and the paid up amount was £16477.66 leaving an amount of £615.85 owed. As I was so unwell for most of this period I only communicated with RCI once near the beginning of my breakdown to explain the situation. In November 2007 the gearbox of my 4 year old van gave up the Ghost and because of my depression and the overwhelming costs to repair the van I attempted to take out the gearbox myself to discover it was unserviceable. The total cost of repairing the van (materials only) is approx £1800. I only add this for information as the van is parked on my drive with a tarpaulin over it and it is non drivable. In Sept 2008 Bermans proceeded against me at Brighton County Court claiming among other things that: The paid up sum is £16,095.74 and the unpaid balance of the total price is £997.57 Statutory interest hearof £111.29. continuing at £0.21 until payment. Costs pursuant to the agreement (these ended up being £290). At the time I was still unwell although I had improved somewhat and was able to return to work. I tried desperately to contact Bermans before the hearing date to make an arrangement to pay off the dept thus saving the solicitors costs which as already stated ended up at £290 although they wanted nearly £500. I wrote to them by registered post and I telephone leaving multiple messages as well as emailing them to try and get the court date suspended or moved so that we could sort out the issues. I also pointed out that as my van was in a state of disrepair it would only add to the costs because it would have to be delivered to the auction site on a tow lorry. Bermans ignored all my telephone calls, emails and my letter and I ended up in court and an order was made for the above 3 amounts. The Judge agreed that I could pay £75, then £100 a month until the order was satisfied. I tried in vain to explain to the judge that the figures were incorrect and that I only owed £615.85.I even submitted a request for I also explained my illness and gave the judge a copy of a doctors letter setting out my symptoms etc. I also submitted an application for an adjournment stating all the above reasons but as far as I am aware the judge didn't even have the application before him at the hearing. That cost me £75 Unfortunately Sept 2008 was the start of the decline in my industry (construction industry) and as I was already out for some rime since my illness and no longer had a client base of any real value I struggled to keep up and only made the 1st payment of £75 and subsequent payments of £100 and £50 before lack of work and hardship intervened (total £225.00). Fast forward to today and Bermans are taking me back to court in 5 days seeking a money order for £997.57 and interest to 12 sept 2008 of £111.29, additional interest from 12 Sept 2008 to present for £166.95 and costs of £290. They also want additional costs on the 15th for £247. Before the last court date Bermans refused to answer any of my letters etc and wrote to me 8 months ago saying they would recover the van. However they have obviously sent someone round to look as they are now seeking a money order as they obviously realised that taking the van would only add to the costs. There are a few issues I need help on: 1. At the time of the original court date I couldn't find documentation to back up my claim that all I owed was £615.85 but now I have found the letter from RCI stating that the total amount was £17093.51 and the paid up amount was £16477.66, leaving the £615.85 as I have already stated, not the £997.57 as stated in Bermans submission to the court. 2. In Bermans Court submission of Sept 2008 they included a very poorly photocopied copy of the signed agreement. I am now sure that this is forged in that my signature from correspondence either to Bermans or RCI after the date of the agreement has been put onto the photocopy or document issued to Bermans. I have a copy of the original front page of the agreement and they do not match in placement and style. How can I now pursue this obvious fraud? Is called fraud in the factum or something? 3. I paid the £2344.79 deposit for the agreement by credit card but looking at the CCA act it states that only a bank note or cheack can be taken by a creditor in discharge of any sum payable CCA S123. S124 talks about consequence of breaches to S123. Does this make the agreement unenforcable or help my case in any way. I have no intention of deliberately not paying but I only want to pay what I owe which is £615.85 and I've already paid £225 off of that. 4. Since I have already paid £225 regardless of the other issues how can I stop the case on the 15th (5 days) from going ahead or get it postponed whilst Bermans and myself work through these issues. I am in a situation where I can afford to pay immediately to Bermans (I suppose without prejudice) £800, which is £83 short of what they originally claimed but a dammed lot more that the £615.85 the RCI documentation says I owe. 5. Am I right in thinking that if I apply for an adjournment or what ever its called, an officer of the court can issue this without it going before a judge? I cant pay more than £800 at the moment. This amount already is likely to mean I am late on other more pressing payments I need to make to live on. Will this be enough to put a stop to the proceeding whilst I make counter claims to Bermans and explore the obvious Fraud in the court documents filed and the other issues such as the deposit and the enforceability of the contract. I'm assuming and hoping that the judge will take a dim view of Bermans not agreeing to a short month stay to sort out / carry out some discovery if I pay all but £83, say by bank transfer. I'm sure there are other issues but any immediate help with getting a postponement would be a great help. Obviously any fees I would have to pay to the court reduces the £800 I can pay to Bermans immediately. Also I desperately want to avoid additional costs of £247 in what is already turned out to be a doubling of the original debt through miss statements and obvious fraud not withstanding my role in this farce. Again I'm sorry this is so long and my apologies that there are only 5 days (4 tomorrow) but I still suffer from some degree from depression and big issues like this make it worse hence lateness. I will be so fantastically grateful for any help or suggestions. Nick p.s. I just noticed that the judgement states I am to surrender the vehicle AND pay all the money! agreement.pdf statement of claim and judgement.pdf

I'm a newbe. Hi Hasn't the OC in most cases already received tax relief having written off the claim and sold it (sorry I meant assigned it although they both have different meanings). What is even more annoying is that the OC in most cases being a bank or other financial institution created the money in the first place since banks and credit card companies do not lend there own money but create it out of thin air. What actually happens is an exchange my promissory note for a certain amount of computer credits called pounds created and paid into my account. Sorry for going off thread there. Seriously how can the OC write off the debt and still have an interest after selling or assigning it?