not returning deposit, deposit not protected

[willie nelson]

Yes, mariner51 that is basically verbatim, at least from memory. Can I apply for a transcription from the court just from curiosity? that'd be funny.

 

As far as allowing return of deposit up to judgement I really strongly disagree. I'm pretty stubborn, but there were many occasions in the nine months that it took 'til the hearing and more than £750 invested in this claim that I almost lost my nerve, (even if the claim is clear one cannot always trust that the truth will come out and justice be done) and many others would have given up, and that is why this law was written: so people don't have to start legal action to get THEIR OWN MONEY back from a thieving landlord.

My experience with landlords has been good until this time, so I bear no ill will to landlords as a class, but the temptation of leaving a large amount of somebody else's money in their control sometimes proves too much and many find it easy (sometimes with a little exaggeration) to find an excuse to hold onto some or all of it, in the knowledge that many people do not want the hassle, time and expense of starting legal action and will just write it off. If this deposit protection scheme was intended to remedy anything it was to stop this and allowing payment up until judgement changes NOTHING AT ALL in this regard. It's only if the money is already in a scheme before the end of a tenancy that it will stop these speculative thefts by landlords.

Obviously the wording of the act has left some wiggle room for lawyers and landlords to avoid the penalty, but it is clearly a loophole and not intended by the act. How many landlords are going to protect the deposit if they don't have to? The less scrupulous landlord can just take the same chance that the tenant won't start court proceedings and that can be easy to discourage with a bit of bluster and legalese.

I agree it is an extremely harsh penalty for someone who just by oversight did not protect the deposit, or was a day late protecting it, etc. and this should be cleared up but not at the expense of the whole Act. As the dissenting Lord Justice Sedley said in the Tiensia appeal it would eviscerate the whole act.

It's simple. If you're competent enough to rent out a property with all the other regulations that cover that e.g. gas safety, EPC and let's not forget actually keeping records so you can pay tax on your property income, you are COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE DEPOSIT!

IT IS NOT THE LANDLORD'S MONEY!! And landlords should not treat it as their money, simple.

Anyway I won this time and I am extremely happy about that. Exactly as Bedlington83 says she just thinks she can roll up to the court and say the tenant is a horrible ****** so kick him out and take his money. She tries to evict me, threatens me with forced entry of the flat, phones me, texts me, emails me shouting, swearing, doesn't have gas safety cert., EPC, doesn't protect the deposit, 99 percent sure never paid tax on the rent I paid her on time every month and then lied to steal my money (tho changing her story to say that the mattress was not just filthy but soaked in urine and faeces at the last minute was kind of amusing).

I felt a tiny bit sorry for her when she pathetically suggested the judge call her mum, but only a tiny bit.

[mariner51]

Willie,

" that is why this law was written: so people don't have to start legal action to get THEIR OWN MONEY back from a thieving landlord. "

 

The Act enabled the Deposit Protection Scheme and provided some 'encouragement' to LLs to comply.

 

Deposit remains the property of T for throughout Tenancy, but it is also a 'part-refundable bond' from which LL can claim T damages as nec.

but T claim for additional 3X is a fine which can only be levied by Court. You are wrong to say LL can avoid this by repaying deposit at any time up to judgement. More correctly, at any time up to start of hearing. Whilst I don't deny the existence of some 'thieving LLs' (your words), there are also some savvy Ts able to 'work' the system. Why should they be able to pay a £500 deposit, cause damage of £750 an leave without Notice with at least £1000 rent arrears and trouser £2250? If LL does locate ex-T and successfully sues in Court for £1750, T renages on agreement to pay debt at £10 / wk, the LL does not get awarded £1750 + 3X this amount but will have to pay more for enforcement action which may not be successful so many LLs do not even try to recover anything.

You have also overlooked one amendment to the Act which states in effect that 'if deposit is not protected in an approved scheme AND the T provided with the 'required information' then no valid s21 Notice can be issued' No s21 no Court order for re-possession.

 

Find a knowlegable newbie LL and ask how long it can take a new deposit cheque received at start of AST to clear and how long to open a new DPS account and receive DPS account details by Royal Mail. I suggest longer than the stipulated 14 days.

(Don't forget LL is legally resp for any dep paid by T to a LA)

You have had a successful experience with one type of T (honest self) and one type of LL (disagreeable)

If you can propse a system that gives equal legal protection to LL & T alike I am sure the NLA / RLA / HMG will be happy to listen, until then we have only the E&W legal system.

Edited March 25, 2011 by mariner51

[willie nelson]

yes i agree 3x is wrong for a couple of days overdue, but that is missing the point. and what is the encouragement to comply if it's not the big punishment if LL's don't comply?

 

anyway:

1) don't forget there is no system to play if the landlord has protected the deposit. just follow the rules!

2) i say "their own money" because it is exactly that, the tenant's money held as security. exactly as you say "from which the LL can CLAIM". "claim" is not the same as "pocket the tenant's money if he feels like it". if it is with an approved scheme the LL cannot take it unilaterally without providing evidence, and neither can the tenant walk away with it if the LL objects to returning the whole deposit for whatever reason. if they can't agree then it'll go to a hearing. but at least the landlord can't just take it on the off-chance the tenant won't pursue it.

3) if the LL doesn't like the rules they can choose a new business, but people i.e. tenants have to live somewhere.

4) section 21 irrelevant in my case as i wanted to get away from this woman asap, and stop giving her my money, all i wanted was MY MONEY back when i left the flat cleaner than we moved in.

 

as i said i've nothing against landlords, and my experiences of renting have been almost entirely positive, but i know of quite a few friends who've had to go to court, as well as a few that haven't bothered, even when the LL has taken their money. certainly more than i've heard of damage or "playing the system".

no as a system it's not perfect but this, or it's apparent intention, seems to me to level the playing field somewhat.

 

what's E&W?

[mariner51]

E&W = England and Wales

IMO s21 is not irrelevent for most LLs as it is nec to initiate any repossession esp if Court order is required.

Since this Forum is for help & advice and does not have a Flame Pit for debating issues, I will respect our differing positions and allow others to chip in if they wish.

[Ed999]

IMO s21 is not irrelevent for most LLs as it is nec to initiate any repossession esp if Court order is required.

 

 

Read this FAQ: Shorthold Tenancy - posession, eviction and notice.

 

In the event of non-payment of rent, or breach of any other term of the tenancy, the landlord can apply for possession under section 8 of the 1988 Act.

[willie nelson]

so the landlady has not paid up, predictably enough. she has appealed against my train fares to attend the hearing in york, claiming it was me that moved the hearing to york in order to increase the costs (!!!!!!) and so she should have to pay the fares. she requesting staying the whole payment til this is considered.

this is obviously a load of rubbish, but do i just have to wait?

is there anything i can do?

thank you all.

[Steve__M]

I've just enjoyed your court report which I missed because I was on holiday. Well done for your win.

 

I wonder if it is possible to require LL to pay the remainder of the claim before she can contest the rail fees?

[willie nelson]

i think it just has to wait for the circuit judge to consider it.... but please tell me if that is wrong

[willie nelson]

hi everyone,

ok. that's all sorted. the landlady's appeal got thrown out... now how do i get paid? should i contact my landlady directly or leave her alone, and start proceedings? the proceedings don't look as simple as i thought and look like she can just ignore all that too!

is there advice on this site?

thanks

[Ed999]

Read the FAQ: Got A Judgment? How To Get Paid

 

Note: The fees mentioned in that FAQ may now be out of date. You should check the current fee with the court.

[willie nelson]

ok.... i am feeling depressed after what i have just read...the appeal decision on hashemi v gladehurst.

 

My landlady has just been allowed an appeal on the grounds that i was not a tenant when i made the claim.

 

I got the court order a week ago but just started looking at things today. i thought i had a pretty foolproof argument. but the hashemi v gladehurst appeal is since my hearing in march.

 

in her request to appeal the landlady originally appealed only against trainfare expenses so i didn't pay it much attention, this was rejected in writing. she insisted on an oral hearing and it came out that an appeal was granted on the grounds of not being a tenant. i wrote the court a letter supporting my position but didn't address the tenant issue as this wasn't in her request to appeal... is this a procedural irregularity?

 

the appeal hearing is in september.

1) does this mean i might as well give up?

2) if i proceeded would that mean i wouldn't even get my costs back which now amount to more than my original deposit? would i even get my £780 deposit back?

 

more than a year after i moved out i still haven't received any of my deposit and the district judge agreed that she withheld it without any justification and as good as said she was a liar. she's just a ****ing thief!

 

I've just started reading about this tds again so might not be up to date.

Has the localism bill people are chattering about come to anything?

Is anything going further up through the courts?

please, help and advice wanted!

 

sorry you've got me a bit shocked and angry. Can i even get what i've lost back?

[Ed999]

My comments only apply if the premises are entirely within England and Wales, and you are granted a shorthold tenancy (under which you - and your spouse/partner/children, if any - have exclusive use of a seperate dwelling, which is not shared with another tenant nor with the landlord), and you were over 18 years of age when the tenancy was granted, and the rent is less than £2,083 per month.

 

This posting is supplemental to the information in this forum's "sticky" threads and is NOT to be read in isolation.

 

 

 

i am feeling depressed after what i have just read...the appeal decision on hashemi v gladehurst.

...

My landlady has just been allowed an appeal on the grounds that i was not a tenant when i made the claim.

 

 

The crucial issue is whether the court hearing takes place BEFORE or AFTER the tenancy has ended, not whether the tenancy still existed at the time you began the court proceedings.

 

Once the tenancy has ended you CAN sue for the return of your original deposit; but you CANNOT sue for the statutory penalty of three times the amount of the deposit - except, perhaps, if your claim is made under section 213(5) of the 2004 Act.

 

If you sue AFTER the tenancy ended, to have any chance you need to be claiming a breach of section 213(5) [provision of prescribed information], not 213(3). If you have claimed only under section 213(3) you are likely to lose that part of the claim, just as the tenant lost in Gladehurst.

 

The outcome of a claim under section 213(5) is uncertain. It is not clear whether a claim under section 213(5) can succeed after the tenancy ends.

 

 

Read the FAQs about the tenancy deposit scheme:

 

• Tenancy Deposit Scheme

 

• Tenancy Deposit Protection - First High Court Decision

 

• TDS eligibility, implication of breach and legal questions answered

 

 

The Court of Appeal has decided, in Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi (19th May 2011), a case in which the tenancy deposit was never protected by the landlord, that section 214 of the Act only makes sense if both options contained in it (i.e. return of the deposit or its protection in a TDS scheme) are available to the Court. The Court said this can only be the case if the tenancy is still in existence, so the penalties for non-protection of the deposit are NOT available to the tenant after the tenancy has come to an end [see paragraph 37 and 42 in the Judgement]. The tenant therefore CANNOT succeed in a section 213(3) claim once the tenancy is over.

 

The practical effect of Gladehurst is that the tenant must make any claim under section 213(3) at the BEGINNING of the tenancy.

 

 

 

Reconsidering Gladehurst

 

1. Because Gladehurst concerns a section 213(3) claim only, it does not necessarily form an authority on a section 213(5) claim. This point is obscured by the fact that section 213 is barely mentioned in the Court of Appeal judgement, and section 213(5) is not considered at all.

 

The High Court had previously decided, in Potts v Densley, that the tenant can win a claim under section 213(5) if the landlord fails to provide the prescribed information, even where the deposit is actually protected. But in Gladehurst the Court of Appeal met a case in which the deposit was never protected at all; so it necessarily considered only the section 213(3) obligation, and not the entirely seperate section 213(5) obligation.

 

2. Also, in my opinion Gladehurst was wrongly decided. The Court of Appeal said section 214 only makes sense if both options contained in it (i.e. return of the deposit or its protection in a TDS scheme) are available to the Court, and that this can only be the case if the tenancy is still on-going. But, in point of actual fact, where the tenancy still exists the court has no jurisdiction to order the return of the deposit - because the purpose of the deposit is to meet any rent arrears or disrepair that exists when the tenancy ends.

 

These points, taken together, seem to cast some doubt on whether a claim under section 213(5) must inevitably fail, where the tenancy has ended; which is why I suggest the point is not finally settled. However, it would be prudent to obtain advice from a Solicitor as to whether a claim made under section 213(5) has any realistic prospect of success if the tenancy ends before the final court hearing takes place.

 

But, of course, if your original court application has made no claim under section 213(5) then you are in immediate difficulties. You would probably need to apply to amend your original claim, relying perhaps upon the huge leeway shown by the court to the landlord - the court ought to extend some similar leeway to you.

 

 

 

if i proceeded would that mean i wouldn't even get my costs back which now amount to more than my original deposit? would i even get my £780 deposit back?

 

 

You probably have to proceed, if you hope to recover your original deposit - depending upon what, exactly, the landlord is appealling against. You've been vague on whether she's actually appealling against that part of the original decision. Is she?

 

None of the foregoing prevents the tenant succeeding in a claim for the return of the original deposit (a claim which can only succeed AFTER the tenancy ends, because that deposit is security for non-payment of the rent and for damage during the tenancy).

 

A Court can still order the landlord to return the original deposit where the tenancy has ended. It's only a section 213(3) claim that Gladehurst has limited to cases in which the tenancy has not yet ended.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ed999

[willie nelson]

Thank you for your reply.

yes, ed999, much of what you have written there i have read in other threads and i agree with all that you are saying, but I suppose my problem is not that i have to decide what are my chances of winning a claim now, but that I have already started a claim last july, and i can't turn back the clock. i have since won my claim in the county court in march.

 

now there is an appeal and i return to what looked like a rock solid case to find the legal landscape changed dramatically around it.

I don't now no what i should do or the implications of the permission to appeal.

 

remember, her initial appeal was to challenge the cost of train fares!

 

the order came after lots of delays:

"1 the apellant has permission to amend her grounds of appeal to include an assertion that the judge was wrong to award damages under s 214(3) and (4).... as the claimant was not a tenant when the proceedings were issued.

 

2 permission to appeal is granted limited to this ground

 

4 No order for costs"

 

So if the appeal limited to the damages (of 3x deposit) does that mean i keep all the costs awarded and return of the deposit?

 

If I go to appeal i will get hit by a massive bill for costs because as things stand i cannot win.

do i have to let everything go? does the fact that the appeal is limited to the damages mean i keep deposit and costs? maybe bring a seperate claim for my deposit? there was no dispute that the landlady was a lying *****.

i just at a loss as to what i should do now i'm halfway through. obviously i wouldn't start a new claim now, but i don't have that choice anymore!

and how do i find out if any of these absurd appeal decisions are going to higher courts to reverse them. should i try and delay the hearing in the hope that the situation changes?

 

thanks everyone, i'm still a bit stunned!

[willie nelson]

oops

[Steve__M]

I'll make an extra point to say that I am not a lawyer here. The questions that maybe others know is:

 

Is case law back-dated? In this case didn't the Gladehurst case happen *after* your case?

 

Did the LL defend your original claim by saying that you are not a tenant? I understood that you could only appeal on a point of law that the judge had got wrong. I didn't think you could rewrite your defence.

 

Even if the appeal is successful on the point of the 3x penalty the LL has *still* got a judgement for return of the deposit and has still been shown to have broken the law by failing to protect within 14 days - so you should still be entitled to some or all of your costs.

 

I would emphasise the point Ed made, that your case may be different (I haven't reread your thread to see).

 

The High Court had previously decided, in Potts v Densley, that the tenant can win a claim under section 213(5) if the landlord fails to provide the prescribed information, even where the deposit is actually protected. But in Gladehurst the Court of Appeal met a case in which the deposit was never protected at all; so it necessarily considered only the section 213(3) obligation, and not the entirely seperate section 213(5) obligation.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Steve__M

[Steve__M]

I was wondering whether you could apply for the appeal to be delayed till LL has repaid the uncontested money - ie the deposit - on the basis that the LL has no intention of paying money in any case.

[willie nelson]

thanks steve M,

yes, Answers..

as far as backdating is concerned, i don't know. but as the appeal is that the district judge was wrong to order the penalty, it could be argued that he wasn't wrong with the decision that he made at the time. he would however be wrong if he made that order after the hashemi v gladehurst appeal ruling.

 

I doubt this is the case but does anyone know for sure?

thanks everyone

[Monarch-claimer]

Using Section 213(5) doesn't work either - had the compensation element of my claim against LL struck out today, despite relying on that.

 

Also tried to distinguish my claim from Hashemi on the fact that the LL had told me the deposit was protected during the tenancy, so I inevitably only found out the truth at the end, but this didn't fly either.

[Ed999]

 

1 the apellant has permission to amend her grounds of appeal to include an assertion that the judge was wrong to award damages under s 214(3) and (4).... as the claimant was not a tenant when the proceedings were issued.

 

2 permission to appeal is granted limited to this ground

 

So if the appeal limited to the damages (of 3x deposit) does that mean i keep all the costs awarded and return of the deposit?

 

 

 

This appeal is limited. The grounds of appeal are that your tenancy had ended by the time you issued - i.e. began - the court proceedings. If that is true, then your claim for a penalty of three times the amount of the deposit under section 213(3) must fail, as a result of Gladehurst; but - perhaps - not necessarily your claim under section 213(5), if you have made one.

 

And the appeal relates only to the penalty. She is not appealling against an order that she repay the original deposit.

 

 

Nor is she appealling against the earlier order regarding costs. And although the court will please itself as to costs -

 

a. you can make the point that Gladehurst did not get decided until AFTER the final judgement in your case, so you were not at fault in bringing your original claim, as the law then stood; and

 

b. the court might be disposed to make no order for costs on the forthcoming appeal hearing, as both parties are unrepresented; and

 

c. you had to sue, in order to reclaim your original deposit, because the case was not solely about the section 213 penalties; and

 

d. even if you don't get awarded the penalty, you have still won the case, i.e. because she has still been ordered to repay the original deposit.

 

So there is some chance of the earlier costs orders not being disturbed.

 

 

You must assist me - by telling me whether your case is proceeding as a small claims case in the arbitration division, or is proceeding as a Part 8 claim. In the latter situation, i.e. a Part 8 claim, costs can be awarded. Whereas, in a small claims division case the only 'costs' awards possible are expenses - e.g. travelling expenses - but not solicitors fees: so these awards are not costs as such.

 

It's rare for a travel expenses claim to be overturned. It's even possible a claim for solicitors charges at the earlier hearings might survive, i.e. a genuine costs order, if the defendant appeals on a ground that he / she never raised in the original case.

 

If it's a Part 8 claim, costs could be awarded at the appeal hearing; but the most likely order, if both parties are acting without a solicitor, is no order for costs.

 

 

 

do i have to let everything go?

 

 

No. You might write a letter to the court, consenting to that part of the original judgement which deals with the section 214 penalty being set aside; and ask for judgement in the amount of the original deposit, together with the travelling expenses originally awarded.

 

If you write to the court to that effect, you will want to make the points in that letter - in regard to costs and/or travelling expenses - that I have mentioned above.

 

The forthcoming appeal hearing would probably not take place if you do that.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Ed999

[Ed999]

Using Section 213(5) doesn't work either - had the compensation element of my claim against LL struck out today, despite relying on that.

 

Also tried to distinguish my claim from Hashemi on the fact that the LL had told me the deposit was protected during the tenancy, so I inevitably only found out the truth at the end, but this didn't fly either.

 

 

Can you help by outlining any reasons that were given for the decision ?

[willie nelson]

thank you very much for your response...

i started the claim as a part 8 claim.

at the first hearing in clerkenwell and shoreditch cc DJ Manners (who incidentally was the same judge that threw out hashemi's original claim "on her own motion" for not being a tenant) changed it to a part 7 claim on the small claims track... (sorry if my terminology isn't quite accurate). no solicitors were used so there are no legal costs.

 

i presume if i go ahead to the appeal hearing then i will just lose all the costs associated with that.

 

given that in hashemi there was part of the deposit paid so there couldn't be protection or return, and the bizarre logic says that a it's the lack of this choice that means the claim can't succeed, is there a possibility that in my case those options ARE available, and so the case is sufficiently different to hashemi to have a chance to win?

I have read that the tds will, in fact, accept a deposit after the end of the tenancy (tho i haven't checked this out).

 

the appeal hearing that is coming up for me in september, would that actually be the appeal or just a preliminary? do all appeals have three Judges sitting and issue a report like the one in hashemi gladehurst? i presume another appeal hearing has no right to give a different decision.

 

how does one get past the precedent to a higher court to reconsider the decision in hashemi gladehurst? is hashemi pursuing the claim?

 

It is such absurd logic i can hardly belive it stands up and had no dissenting opinion from the other two judges. it's just deliberate sabotage...

 

And i suppose lastly is there anything likely to fix this in the interim? legislative fix or higher court decision? is it worth trying to delay things?

 

i find it hard to accept that this lying ***** of a landlady is going to get away with this by the skin of her teeth. presumably these loopholes will get fixed eventually, but too late for me...

 

anyway thanks for your time.

[willie nelson]

another small thing is that the judge ordering the penalty gave her 3 weeks to pay. the act says 2 weeks. this gave her longer to request an appeal, then there were delays in processing her requests to appeal. without such delays the request to appeal might have been heard before the hashemi decision, and therefore the appeal would have been refused. is there any mileage in this?

[Ed999]

 

i started the claim as a part 8 claim. at the first hearing in clerkenwell and shoreditch cc DJ Manners (who incidentally was the same judge that threw out hashemi's original claim "on her own motion" for not being a tenant) changed it to a part 7 claim on the small claims track... (sorry if my terminology isn't quite accurate). no solicitors were used so there are no legal costs.

 

 

 

As it's a small claims case, the likelihood is that no costs order will be made against yo,u if you lose, in respect of the case to date. Legal costs - i.e. solicitors charges - are not awarded to the winner in 99% of such cases - unless the Judge decides otherwise in advance, and warns you in advance.

 

Try to keep in mind that you will WIN the case if you are ultimately granted an order for her to pay you the original deposit.

 

 

 

i presume if i go ahead to the appeal hearing then i will just lose all the costs associated with that.

 

 

 

If the appeal hearing takes place, there is a possibility of a costs order being made against you in respect of the costs of the appeal, if the landlord's appeal succeeds.

 

But it is entirely at the court's discretion. The winner can be awarded costs on an appeal, I think, even in a small claims case, but this is an unusual situation for the reasons I explained yesterday, and if the landlord is not legally represented at the appeal stage then she has no solicitors costs as such. She might be entitled to a sum for costs of a litigant in person, or expenses. But the costs outcome isn't sure, as she can - at best - be only partly successful in the case, as she is only appealling against part of the decision. Costs are discretionary. I can't tell you what the judge will decide!

 

 

 

given that in hashemi there was part of the deposit paid so there couldn't be protection or return, and the bizarre logic says that a it's the lack of this choice that means the claim can't succeed, is there a possibility that in my case those options ARE available, and so the case is sufficiently different to hashemi to have a chance to win?

 

 

 

If you believe that, then you have, unfortunately, misunderstood Gladehurst.

 

In Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi (decided on 19th May 2011), the tenancy deposit was never protected by the landlord. That case therefore appears to be the SAME as your case, hence your outcome is likely to be the same as the outcome in Gladehurst.

 

The Court of Appeal decided in Gladehurst that section 214 of the Act only makes sense in such a case if both options contained in it (i.e. return of the deposit or its protection in a TDS scheme) are available to the Court. The Court said this can only be the case if the tenancy is still in existence, so the penalties for non-protection of the deposit are NOT available to the tenant after the tenancy has come to an end - see paragraph 37 and 42 in the Judgement.

 

 

 

 

I have read that the tds will, in fact, accept a deposit after the end of the tenancy (tho i haven't checked this out).

 

 

 

The Court considered that issue in Potts, and - I think - in Gladehurst. They found it to be irrelevent.

 

 

 

 

the appeal hearing that is coming up for me in september, would that actually be the appeal or just a preliminary? do all appeals have three Judges sitting and issue a report like the one in hashemi gladehurst? i presume another appeal hearing has no right to give a different decision.

 

 

 

Your landlord has appealled to the county court's Circuit Judge. Appeals from a District Judge's order are heard by a Circuit Judge, sitting alone, within the same county court.

 

This appeal will NOT be heard in the High Court, nor will it be heard in the Court of Appeal.

 

 

 

 

how does one get past the precedent to a higher court to reconsider the decision in hashemi gladehurst?

 

 

 

By contesting this appeal before the Circuit Judge, and losing; then applying for leave to appeal to the High Court; then arguing the case in the High Court, and losing there too; then applying for leave to appeal to the Appeal Court. A very, very expensive process, with no certainty of winning.

 

 

 

 

is hashemi pursuing the claim?

 

 

 

I have no idea.

 

 

 

And i suppose lastly is there anything likely to fix this in the interim? legislative fix or higher court decision? is it worth trying to delay things?

 

 

 

I have no idea.

[Ed999]

another small thing is that the judge ordering the penalty gave her 3 weeks to pay. the act says 2 weeks. this gave her longer to request an appeal, then there were delays in processing her requests to appeal. without such delays the request to appeal might have been heard before the hashemi decision, and therefore the appeal would have been refused. is there any mileage in this?

 

 

No.

[willie nelson]

thank you again ed999,

 

There doesn't seem to be much to be done. I think i did understand gladehurst just looking for some differentiation between gladehurst and mine... just in that much of the deposit was already returned in gladehurst, not in my claim, but i agree that doesn't really work.

 

and thank you for explaining the court hierarchy it's this procedure as much as anything that i am not familiar with.

 

I suppose at the moment in trying to reach a decision. i see no advantage for me in going to a hearing that i have no possibility of winning, and that will probably just cost me money. I suppose i write to the judge and say that and ask him to make an order to get my deposit and expenses so far. are judges receptive to this type of correspondence? i presume if it can free up court time it's good for them.otherwise, is there anything i can hope to get out of the appeal hearing?

 

I looked at my original claim again. it seems it might be a bit mixed up. i seem to remember i just cut a pasted it from this site, but anyway... the wording as follows:

 

"...the deposit....was not paid into an appropriate deposit scheme (in breach of section 213 (1) of the Housing Act 2004), and that the claimant did not receive the prescribed information concerning which Tenancy Deposit Scheme was holding the deposit within 14 days of the Defendant's receipt of the Deposit (in breach of section 213 (3) of the housing act...)"

 

so i didn't mention 213(5) at all. I guess that means that isn't an option. even if the idea you have of a 213 (5) claim is possible it seems to me a real stretch... how would it work? wouldn't the deposit have to be protected for it to have a chance of succeeding, and just be for winning against landlords protecting at the last minute?

 

it's just Tenancy Deposit Scheme R. I. P. isn't it?

 

Does anyone have any ideas of how to save this? i felt like a swaggering hot-shot lawyer a month ago, now i'm just a bit fed up!!!!

 

thanks everyone.