TDSL is unjust in dispute resolution and won't see sense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jeffrey
    replied
    Department of
    Interference by
    Central Government
    Inquisitiveness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Gibbs
    replied
    Adjudicator rolls one for T and one for LL - highest wins?

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Gigabyte View Post
    I realise this question has little to do with the thread title but its relevant to the TDS.

    I've disputed some charges that my ex LL was claiming and aside from sending off all of the supporting documents, haven't had anything significant back. Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?
    Deposit In Chief Executive's (account)?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Gigabyte View Post
    Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?
    "DICE"? Not a clue. Pick any of these, courtesy of http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DICE:

    DICEDNA Integrated Cybernetic Enterprises (TV show)DICEDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (University of Kent at Canterbury, United Kingdom)DICEDesign, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (game developers' conference)DICEData-Intensive Computing EnvironmentDICEDARPA Initiative in Concurrent EngineeringDICEDynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the EconomyDICEDiabetes in Canada EvaluationDICEDoD Interoperability Communications ExerciseDICEDanube Integrated Circuit Engineering GmbH & Co. (Linz, Austria)DICEDelivering Information in a Cellular EnvironmentDICEDefensive Information to Counter EspionageDICEDistributed Information Warfare Constructive EnvironmentDICEDigital Image Correction Enhancement (scanner)DICEDistributed Interactive C31 Effectiveness (simulation program)DICEDashboard Integrated Control Electronics (Saab)DICEDigital Interface Countermeasures EquipmentDICEDeployed Interoperability Communications ExerciseDICEDillon's Integrated C Environment (C compiler for Amiga)DICEDestroyed in a Colored Environment (hip hop artist)DICEData Integration & Collection EnvironmentDICEDeployable Independent Communications ElementDiCEDiscipline Choice in EngineeringDICEData Integration, Collation and Export (multiple data source aggregation environment)

    Leave a comment:


  • Gigabyte
    replied
    I realise this question has little to do with the thread title but its relevant to the TDS.

    I've disputed some charges that my ex LL was claiming and aside from sending off all of the supporting documents, haven't had anything significant back. Checking online today and the status has been updated and reads "awaiting DICE approval" does anyone know what this means?

    Leave a comment:


  • MaryQK
    replied
    Originally posted by susanne View Post
    thanks everyone for all research published on here - it will certainly give me some ammunition against DPS - etc
    Do let us know how you get on.

    Leave a comment:


  • susanne
    replied
    thanks everyone for all research published on here - it will certainly give me some ammunition against DPS - if more than one LL takes on more than one Deposit Scheme in the same time frame - the media might see a "story " - well at least the Property Media might

    Leave a comment:


  • jta
    replied
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that,
    'twas only a little question guv, if I'd known it was going to be such a big answer............!

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that, because I actually attended a lecture last year on "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Stay Proceedings in Aid of Arbitration Agreements" (or something similar). Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head because the lecture was so dull that I fell asleep.
    I find it a great comfort to know that, like me, others have to sit through CPD sessions of stultifying dullness, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Sully View Post
    So an unscrupulous landlord could inproperly dispute for an amount below the "can't be arsed" level, not agree to ADR and L has a source of extra money just like the Bad/Good old days? Wouldn't that make dispute schemes completely pointless?

    David.
    Well...it wouldn't be quite so easy as the days when LLs could just pocket the deposit (almost as a perk of the job) and tell Ts to beggar off. Having to go through the hassle of going to to court over a few hundred quid when you might lose a good bit more than that if you fail to convince the judge that your claim is watertight...I don't think most LLs would bother, although I see your point.

    And one would hope the average judge would have a firmer grip on the law than the people employed by the TDSL seem to have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sully
    replied
    Originally posted by Esio Trot View Post
    ADR is a very easy system for tenants to use - and its free. When push comes to shove, many tenants in dispute can't be arsed to make a claim in the county court, besides it costing them the court fee unless exempt.
    So an unscrupulous landlord could inproperly dispute for an amount below the "can't be arsed" level, not agree to ADR and L has a source of extra money just like the Bad/Good old days? Wouldn't that make dispute schemes completely pointless?

    David.

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    The editing window timed out when I was in the middle of posting

    As a general principle....

    Arbitration Act 1996


    s.69

    Appeal on point of law


    (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings. An agreement to dispense with reasons for the tribunal’s award shall be considered an agreement to exclude the court’s jurisdiction under this section.

    (2) An appeal shall not be brought under this section except—

    (a) with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or

    (b) with the leave of the court.



    As the TDP ADR is a special case, I don't know whether it is deemed to be an arbitration for the purposes of the Act (although I think it would, being a creature of statute). However, even if the TDP ADR was outside the scope of the Act, I imagine the same principles could probably be unearthed somewhere at common law, if one had the time and inclination to do the necessary research.

    However, by s.87, it is possible for parties to agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. IIRC, the Housing Act or its associated SIs don't actually provide that the TDP ADR decision is final, but, I believe the individual schemes (who are empowered by to make rules) do. As the TDP ADR is voluntary, the parties' submission to arbitration may well count as such an agreement to exclude jurisdiction and the decision would therefore not be appealable. Nevertheless. s.87 only refers to the parties excluding jurisdiction of the courts on a matter relating to a point of law and not to the jurisdiction of the courts to disturb the findings of the arbitrator where there has been a serious irregularity (s.68). In this particular case, it appears there may have been such an irregularity, and so the decision seems to be, in theory at least, appealable under s.68.

    Arbitration Act 1996

    s. 68 Challenging the award: serious irregularity

    (1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the
    ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award.

    A party may lose the right to object (see section 73) and the right to apply is subject to the restrictions in section 70(2) and (3).

    (2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

    (a) failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

    (b) the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

    (c) failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

    (d) failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

    (e) any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

    (f) uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

    (g) the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

    (h) failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

    (i) any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

    (3) If there is shown to be serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award, the court may—

    (a) remit the award to the tribunal, in whole or in part, for reconsideration,

    (b) set the award aside in whole or in part, or

    (c) declare the award to be of no effect, in whole or in part.

    The court shall not exercise its power to set aside or to declare an award to be of no effect, in whole or in part, unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to remit the matters in question to the tribunal for reconsideration.

    (4) The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section.


    s.87 Effectiveness of agreement to exclude court’s jurisdiction

    (1) In the case of a domestic arbitration agreement any agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the court under—

    (a) section 45 (determination of preliminary point of law), or

    (b) section 69 (challenging the award: appeal on point of law),

    is not effective unless entered into after the commencement of the arbitral proceedings in which the question arises or the award is made.

    (2) For this purpose the commencement of the arbitral proceedings has the same meaning as in Part I (see section 14).

    (3) For the purposes of this section the question whether an arbitration agreement is a domestic arbitration agreement shall be determined by reference to the facts at the time the agreement is entered into.

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    Originally posted by jta View Post
    So given that! Even though a paper has been signed to accept the decision, if the parties believe there to have been a mistake in law, could the decision be challenged? ( I think 'set aside' is the phrase)
    Ha ha, I wish you hadn't asked me that, because I actually attended a lecture last year on "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court to Stay Proceedings in Aid of Arbitration Agreements" (or something similar). Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head because the lecture was so dull that I fell asleep.

    However, my gut feeling is that a party could have the decision set aside in such circumstances. I'll look it up and get back to you.

    Arbitration Act 1996

    s.69

    Appeal on point of law

    (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings. An agreement to dispense with reasons for the tribunal’s award shall be considered an agreement to exclude the court’s jurisdiction under this section.

    (2) An appeal shall not be brought under this section except—

    (a) with the agreement of all the other parties to the proceedings, or

    (b) with the leave of the court.



    As the TDP ADR is a special case, I don't know whether it is deemed to be an arbitration for the purposes of the Act (although I think it would, being a creature of statute). However, even if the TDP ADR was outside the scope of the Act, I imagine the same principles could probably be unearthed somewhere at common law, if one had the time and inclination to do the necessary research.

    Leave a comment:


  • jta
    replied
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

    I know of an agent who (so he could decide on company policy in such circumstances) has asked the TDS bodies on several occasions to give an indication of the qualifications and adjudicative experience of the arbitrators, but he hasn't even received a response to any of his letters. I think that says it all.
    So given that! Even though a paper has been signed to accept the decision, if the parties believe there to have been a mistake in law, could the decision be challenged? ( I think 'set aside' is the phrase)

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    Originally posted by Esio Trot View Post
    As I have posted before, because of the lack of housing law knowledge by many arbiters, coupled with the requirement to sign to accept the arbiters decision as final, where deposit protection disputes are involved NO LANDLORD/AGENT SHOULD EVER AGREE TO ARBITRATION.

    etc etc
    I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

    I know of an agent who (so he could decide on company policy in such circumstances) has asked the TDS bodies on several occasions to give an indication of the qualifications and adjudicative experience of the arbitrators, but he hasn't even received a response to any of his letters. I think that says it all.

    Chances are the arbitrators are a bunch of hastily trained lay people meddling in a discipline they don't understand.



    Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
    I used to be an adjudicator for TDSL....
    Why am I not surprised by that statement?

    LMAO: I only saw the quoted passage after posting the above comments on the likely background of the adjudicators. It proves my hypothesis beyond doubt!


    Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
    ....that's why I was no longer required as I challenged some of their 'procedures' - an unwise decision ultimately.
    Who was unwise?

    (1) Was it unwise of you to challenge them, because it led to your untimely demise?

    or,

    (2) Was it unwise of them to remove you from your duties, because,

    (a) It robbed TDSL of your Lord Denning-esque judicial wisdom?

    or,

    (b) You are plotting to wreak some form of ingenious and bloody revenge on TDSL for failing to recognise your unique genius? (the words "an unwise decision, ultimately" could sound quite sinister and threatening in the right context - even more so if you dressed up as an evil criminal mastermind in a manner similar to eg: The Joker)

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X