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

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

    #31
    Sully you are a fountain of knowledge.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Sully View Post
      In TDS documents ICE stands for Independant Case Examiner. DICE = Designated Independant Case Examiner?
      Dim?
      Dastardly?
      Dehumanised?
      Deregulated (ie does what he wants)?
      Dogsbody?
      Deconstructionist ?

      ..or probably, in this context, Disorganised.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #33
        More likely to be:

        Donut
        Doppy
        Dippy
        Dullard
        Dickhead
        ?
        A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
        W.Churchill

        Comment


          #34
          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.

          If the landlord/agent does not agree to ADR, then the tenant has to use the normal court procedure.

          There are three compelling reasons for landlords/agents not to use ADR
          1. 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.
          2. Should a claim be made in the county court, landlords/agents can be reasonably confident that the judge has working knowledge of housing law.
          3. Should the tenant not make a claim in the county court, despite letters to them from whichever TDS scheme has been used, the full disputed deposit will eventually be paid back to the landlord/agent.

          At the risk of repetition, NEVER USE ADR
          I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by ah84 View Post
            I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.
            But Esio Trot mentioned only Housing law.
            JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
            1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
            2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
            3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
            4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

            Comment


              #36
              Reply from The Dispute Service

              Assuming you're talking about us rather than Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd (TDSL), I'm sorry that you feel so aggrieved about our adjudication. Please let me have the TDS reference number. I will treat your blog as a formal complaint and investigate it following the procedure set out in TDS F Complaints procedure - for complaints about the way the ICE handled your case. I will post the outcome, suitably anonymised, as a further thread. Lawrence Greenberg, Inedpendent Case Examiner.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Lawrence View Post
                Assuming you're talking about us rather than Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd (TDSL), I'm sorry that you feel so aggrieved about our adjudication. Please let me have the TDS reference number. I will treat your blog as a formal complaint and investigate it following the procedure set out in TDS F Complaints procedure - for complaints about the way the ICE handled your case. I will post the outcome, suitably anonymised, as a further thread. Lawrence Greenberg, Inedpendent Case Examiner.
                This thread unfortunately conflates two LZ members' different problems.
                M&M had a TDSL problem.
                Gigabyte had a TDS problem.
                JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by ah84 View Post
                  I would disagree with that, given my experience on a commercial property case where the judge had no clue about property.

                  Just out of interest, how do you know the judge "had no clue" about property?
                  Health Warning


                  I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                  All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    If Lawrence Greenberg is getting involved then all these posts might not be in vain; he's a decent bloke who listens to opinions expressed and I for one am pleased that he's agreed to look again at an adjudication.

                    I know and respect Lawrence's opinion, but there has to be another way as agents and landlords complain that adjudications are tenant friendly, and when I was briefly an adjudicator, felt that I was being pressured to comply with whatever the tenancy agreement stated and to ignore any potential unfair terms. Why was this? Adjudicators are most of the time not qualified to take into consideration legal matters, although they able to consult legal opinion from a prominent firm of solicitors. The problem is you'd be on the phone to them all day when you have barely 5 days to make a decision on a missive sometimes approaching the magnitude of War & Peace as in one of my cases. I was not prepared to award a landlord for full replacement cost of his insurance excess for carpets (£700) that were clearly about 30 years old and of little or no commercial value, and with no wear and tear factor taken into account, but I was overruled by another adjudicator who awarded the landlord the lot when I was unable to complete my report within the 5 days allocated! (I have other things to do and £175 is not exactly a compelling reason to "drop tools" for a few days to the exclusion of everything else, but they did pay me for my report.) I felt that it was biased towards the landlord. There were other factors where the landlord was clearly entitled to his money such as rent arrears, landlord's legal costs for repossession and damage by a dog, but the landlord had retained three and a half times the monthly rent as a deposit which I pointed out could have been a premium lease; I was told to ignore this!

                    I feel in this instance the tenant had little protection, but perhaps things have improved as it appears that tenants are now being given the benefit of the doubt. It also highlights a deficiency in the compilation of inventories, and I have always maintained an inadequate inventory does not protect the landlord; who draws up the inventory? Usually an agent so they need to improve their service and charge a decent amount for it. It needs to reflect the necessity of lots of time and accuracy that's required.

                    The case I've highlighted was pre TDS Ltd and was a TDSL case when an ARLA Member was a voluntary member of the scheme.
                    The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                      Adjudicators are most of the time not qualified to take into consideration legal matters,
                      Out of interest, as a general rule, what is the background of a typical adjudicator?


                      Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                      I was not prepared to award a landlord for full replacement cost of his insurance excess for carpets (£700) that were clearly about 30 years old and of little or no commercial value, and with no wear and tear factor taken into account,
                      Surely the insurance company would pay out what they felt was a fair value for the carpet in its current state? They would then deduct the excess from this amount, send a cheque for the value of the net claim and the LL would have to meet the difference himself. In other words, the wear and tear has already been taken into account by the loss adjuster in the global settlment figure and no further adjustments to the excess are necessary, because this would amount to a double deduction.

                      Imagine a case where a carpet is £2500 new, but taking age and wear and tear etc into account, it is now only worth £1500. The LL has an insurance policy with a £500 excess. The insurance company correctly value the carpet at £1500, but taking the excess into account, they only pay the LL £1000. The other £500 is an uninsured loss which (presuming the tenants are liable for the damage) he is entitled to recover in full from them (the tenants). Additionally, the insurance company could, through their rights of subrogation, sue the tenants for the other £1000.

                      Of course, the situation would be different (and you would have been correct) if it was a "new for old" policy.
                      Health Warning


                      I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                      All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        If Lawrence Greenberg reverses a decision made by arbitrators, that will open the flood gates - so, whilst i wait with bated breath for his most welcome input on this thread, i am not optimistic that he will be able to change the decision. with the DPS - their decisions are NOT appealable (I had thought the same applied to all 3 schemes) - which is what makes this whole system so grossly unfair to both tenant and landlord, but especially to landlords in the recent climate of more and more anti-landlord decisions

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by susanne View Post
                          If Lawrence Greenberg reverses a decision made by arbitrators, that will open the flood gates...
                          Apart from anything else, it would be highly irregular.


                          Originally posted by susanne View Post
                          i am not optimistic that he will be able to change the decision. with the DPS - their decisions are NOT appealable (I had thought the same applied to all 3 schemes) - which is what makes this whole system so grossly unfair to both tenant and landlord, but especially to landlords in the recent climate of more and more anti-landlord decisions
                          But did you read my post #17 (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...7&postcount=17), especially the part concerning setting aside arbitration awards where there has been a serious irregularity? Regardless, s.87 does not simply allow the head of an arbitration body to overrule the decision of one of his junior arbitrators once an award has been made - there is a proper procedure to be gone through.
                          Health Warning


                          I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                          All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            thank you - i will consider this carefully over the weekend as it may affect my own situation and my own choice of a way forward with DPS

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X