We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlords who did'nt safeguard deposit-tenants can sue for up 6 years.
Options
itsnotfair_2
Posts: 345 Forumite
Well I got my proper legal advice yesterday. I failed to KNOW I had to deposit a bond given to me in 2004, and as I kindly renewed tenancy agreement each 12 months for her to get HB I am guilty.
The legal advice given was even though they leave the house, and end the agreement they have up to 6 years to sue for the 3xfigure.
I have spoken to numerous people who let a house and none knew this, so be warned.
Funny how this law crept quietly in and it is never put on TV what landlords must do, unlike tax, tv licence, car tax etc.
The legal advice given was even though they leave the house, and end the agreement they have up to 6 years to sue for the 3xfigure.
I have spoken to numerous people who let a house and none knew this, so be warned.
Funny how this law crept quietly in and it is never put on TV what landlords must do, unlike tax, tv licence, car tax etc.
0
Comments
-
It's all part of the responsibility of being a Landlord.
I agree that for most small time LLs it is a bit of a burden. I believe that most Judges would not award the penalty but who knows? They tend to like soft targets.
GGThere are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.0 -
Only LL's that failed to return the deposit (or the very unlucky) have anything to worry about. Any claim when the deposit has been returned will likely fail on the mainly prevailing interpretation of the deposit protection clauses.
The law change was well advertised and is obvious by reading the 2004 housing act or the publications of any of the LL associations - most of whom were consulted. Remember LL's are meant to be a business and should act professionally - this includes being up to date on the regulatory environment.0 -
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You are a businessman if you are a landlord, providing a service of shelter which is as much a necessity as food and warmth. There are professional obligations attached to that.
The law did not creep in all that quietly. Every newspaper covered it. Landlords forums discuss little else the past couple of years. Landlord associations produced all sorts of papers.
You'll be glad to know that retroactive protection seems to get most landlords out of a penalty, although I still haven't heard of any precedent-setting cases on this matter.0 -
Yes, your tenants have up to 6 years to take you to court under the statute of limitations for non-compliance with the law relating to TDS in the same way that you as a landlord have this period in which to sue tenants for non-compliance of the tenancy agreement if they damaged the property or ran up rent arrears.0
-
Rightly so. Amatuer LLs should get fined if they are so incompetent to 'forget' to check up on the latest regulations. If you can't handle such a tiny amount of responsibility, you should even be a land lord.
A judge should side with the tenant if they do sue, as the landlord that hasn't protect the deposits in the proper way should be punished. Unfairly withholding a deposit which is not in a bond should result in the maximum 3x penalty, which I'm sure the courts will happily enforce.0 -
princeofpounds wrote: »You'll be glad to know that retroactive protection seems to get most landlords out of a penalty, although I still haven't heard of any precedent-setting cases on this matter.
I agree that it is a shame that this has still not been clarified and to be honest I suspect it never will be. Most precedent setting cases in housing are from the public housing sector as you (usually) have a plaintiff and defendant who are publicly funded.
However, deposit regs only really apply to private LL's who are never going to risk the court of appeal over a few thousand pounds - especially not against a publicly funded T. I guess the only hope is if one of the LL associations take on a case (as they did with Harvey v Bamforth) but given the way the lower courts are generally siding with LLs this would be a huge risk to take.
It is a double shame as without a court of appeal defeat for how the law should work there will be little incentive to fix the problem!0 -
princeofpounds wrote: »I
You are a businessman if you are a landlord, providing a service of shelter which is as much a necessity as food and warmth.
... and maybe tenants are businessmen. After all, their rent payments provide a service of shelter for their landlords...
I deposited my tenant's deposit in the TDS - it was so easy. There are many more landlords that didn't bother even when fully aware or the requirement.
There are times when I would like to offer my tenant her deposit back (I trust to pay on time-ish and to look after the property). Sadly, it would be too much hassle and by the time I get around to making the offer, I see sense and err on the side of caution.
GGThere are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.0 -
:rolleyes: Do stop bleating , & take on a bit of personal responsibility. Every broadsheet newspaper carried articles about it, it was on the radio, the tv, in leaflets sent out about rental insurances, the LL associations told their members about it , it was on govt websites etc.itsnotfair wrote: »Well I got my proper legal advice yesterday. I failed to KNOW I had to deposit a bond given to me in 2004, and as I kindly renewed tenancy agreement each 12 months for her to get HB I am guilty.
The legal advice given was even though they leave the house, and end the agreement they have up to 6 years to sue for the 3xfigure.
I have spoken to numerous people who let a house and none knew this, so be warned.
Funny how this law crept quietly in and it is never put on TV what landlords must do, unlike tax, tv licence, car tax etc.
If you type property rental / tenancy etc into google you will get vast numbers of websites with all manner of vital information for LLs. Most newspapers have a regular property page or two. I reckon we could take bets on just how quickly you would have learnt about any new reg or law that gave you some sort of personal financial benefit.
" I kindly renewed each 12 months for her to get her HB". Nope, you probably "kindly renewed" because a known T on HB/LHA is a surefire source of steady rental income. LLs as philanthropists? I don't think so: the arrangement worked well for *both* parties.0 -
I think the initial prevailing interpretation seemed to go with tenants, then I agree it swung back well in favour of landlords. But some recent county court cases are throwing up a change back by looking more closely at the scheme's rules themselves. If they mention the 14 day deadline needs to be met then meeting it late may mean a problem for the landlord as it may be found he didn't comply with ‘initial requirements of an authorised scheme’ as per s.214(1)(a) and (2)(a).Only LL's that failed to return the deposit (or the very unlucky) have anything to worry about. Any claim when the deposit has been returned will likely fail on the mainly prevailing interpretation of the deposit protection clauses.
If the intention was the deposit be protected from the start then a let off due to giving it back at the end, or if protected just before court hearing, rather defeats the objective. After all the landlord or agent could go bust etc. before then. I read a post on Singing Pig where someone said a mate LL has chosen to only protect deposits if the tenant kicks off a court claim.
Also the OP's legal advice saying the tenant has up to 6 years to sue even though they leave the house is an interesting point. There have been success for tenants who have left but there has also been debate over that as the legislation talks about the tenant and the landlord, and on leaving the tenant is no longer the tenant.
A right pigs ear IMO.0 -
As already noted....
I note OP's name "itsnotfair"..
Surely you ain't one of those people who always decide that whatever negative thing happened it is always someone else's fault & "it's not fair"..??Funny how this law crept quietly in and it is never put on TV what landlords must do, unlike tax, tv licence, car tax etc.
Dunno about the rest of MSE, but who wants to come across as a whinging, whining bleater??
"itsnotfair": If you managed to miss something this obvious, consider what else you may have missed... Gas Safety, EPC, Insurance, telling your lender what you are doing, paying tax - to mention just a few, very obvious, ones...????? Been on any RLA/NLA courses??
Cheers!
Lodger (Landlord since 2000, including where the DPS don't shine!)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards