DPS - 10 days

Cannon_Fodder

Just a quick, easy question, hopefully.

My DPS paperwork says "10 days" for the return of deposit.

Is that working days, or calendar days?

Trying to avoid going off half-cocked, but as the Mortgage company are seeking Receiver of Rent status, I'm a little concern over financial matters with this LL.

sooz

I think the DPS allow up to 14 days (not working days) for them to return the deposit once it has been agreed between you & your LL or LA.

I've recently agreed to return a DPS held deposit, & the tenants told me it reached their bank account 7 days after they also agreed to it - we both had to put in our return ID's online.

However, you would first need to reach an agreement with you LL as to how much of your deposit they are going to return (hopefully all )

skeating86

Hi All,

I am not sure on the DPS scheme so here goes, I rented a property from a landlord from 19 March 2007 to the 31 August 2008 and moved into a new property the tenancy agreement was a shorthold tenancy agreement but was told by landlord i could stay on as long as i wanted myself and my partner were happy with this when i changed my name i asked my LL to draw up a new tenancy agreement so my back was covered when the LL did this I was told that the bond was kept by her in a seperate account so that i would get the interest when i moved out.

The bond was paid when the tenancy started.

I would like to know if she should have placed it with the DPS to protect the bond or if she is entitled to keep it and give it back when she has inspected the property which has not been done yet as i was told my LL to hand the keys into a neighbour that she knows very well.

Thank You

SImon

tbs624

Simon - it probably would have been better to start your own thread rather than piggybacking on the current thread as things get confusing - see "new thread" button top left of your screen

However, as your initial contract began before 6 April 2007 (and presumably your bond/deposit was paid before this date) your LL did not have to initially scheme register your deposit (Eng/Wales).

The courts’ interpretation of the legislation on replacement/renewal contracts after the date is not yet clear - there haven’t been enough cases through the system.

The general thought seems to be that if a new contract is provided after the date then the deposit ought to be registered, but in a recent case though the judge quibbled over the precise definition of the phrase “received”, as in when the deposit was received. The thinking was that if the LL already "held" the deposit from the previous contract then s/he wasn’t actually “receiving” it after the specific date even if a new contract was signed. Many LLs are erring on the safe side and do register the deposit in these situations, not least because others take the view that if the deposit forms part of the new contract it is only an administrative matter that the LL has not returned it to the tenant at the expiry of the old contract and received it again for the new one. Maybe tenants need to insist that the actual return/repay scenario takes place, in the absence of a decently worded piece of legislation?

You can check for yourself whether your deposit was registered by contacting each of the schemes:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/DG_066391

Do this first, then when you know for certain you can simply write quoting the address of the property, the dates of your tenancy, the date you moved out and who youleft the keys with at the LLs request, confirm that you left the property in the same condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, fair wear & tear excepted, and that all bills have been paid up to date. You could then add a couple of sentences saying that you understand that the Housing Act 2004 S213-215 requires that your deposit should have been scheme-registered and that you should have been given the "prescribed info" on the scheme.

Say that you are seeking the return of your deposit in full and that you look forward to hearing from her within 7 working days. I think it would be risky in your situation to pursue the non-registration issue in the hope of a 3 x pay out, not least because it was not strictly necessary for a new contract to be drawn up.

tbs624

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Just a quick, easy question, hopefully.

My DPS paperwork says "10 days" for the return of deposit.

Is that working days, or calendar days?

Trying to avoid going off half-cocked, but as the Mortgage company are seeking Receiver of Rent status, I'm a little concern over financial matters with this LL.

Write to the LL today (include info mentioned in response to Simon above on address/dates etc) send it recorded delivery or hand deliver it to the LL. S/he has to notify you of any proposed deductions in writing, which you can then challenge if you think you have reasonable grounds to do so. Also contact the scheme admin, explain the situation & ask for their advice - if you get nowhere, ask for a supervisor.

N79

TBS

I'm aware of one case where the judge decided that the word "paid" meant that there was no requirement to protect on renewal as the tenant was not paying anything to the LL in the normal sense of the word pay. This was becuase the LL was already in receipt of the money. Another one to add to your record of cases - I will add yours over the exact definition of "received".

Of course I suspect that we are not hearing of cases where the LL loses and the statute operates as it was probably intended.

At some point someone is going to have to take this to a higher court but I guess we will need to wait for a HB/LHA tenant and a very rich LL.



N79

skeating86

Many Thanks tbs624

tbs624 wrote: »

Simon - it probably would have been better to start your own thread rather than piggybacking on the current thread as things get confusing - see "new thread" button top left of your screen

However, as your initial contract began before 6 April 2007 (and presumably your bond/deposit was paid before this date) your LL did not have to initially scheme register your deposit (Eng/Wales).

The courts’ interpretation of the legislation on replacement/renewal contracts after the date is not yet clear - there haven’t been enough cases through the system.

The general thought seems to be that if a new contract is provided after the date then the deposit ought to be registered, but in a recent case though the judge quibbled over the precise definition of the phrase “received”, as in when the deposit was received. The thinking was that if the LL already "held" the deposit from the previous contract then s/he wasn’t actually “receiving” it after the specific date even if a new contract was signed. Many LLs are erring on the safe side and do register the deposit in these situations, not least because others take the view that if the deposit forms part of the new contract it is only an administrative matter that the LL has not returned it to the tenant at the expiry of the old contract and received it again for the new one. Maybe tenants need to insist that the actual return/repay scenario takes place, in the absence of a decently worded piece of legislation?

You can check for yourself whether your deposit was registered by contacting each of the schemes:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/DG_066391

Do this first, then when you know for certain you can simply write quoting the address of the property, the dates of your tenancy, the date you moved out and who youleft the keys with at the LLs request, confirm that you left the property in the same condition as it was at the start of the tenancy, fair wear & tear excepted, and that all bills have been paid up to date. You could then add a couple of sentences saying that you understand that the Housing Act 2004 S213-215 requires that your deposit should have been scheme-registered and that you should have been given the "prescribed info" on the scheme.

Say that you are seeking the return of your deposit in full and that you look forward to hearing from her within 7 working days. I think it would be risky in your situation to pursue the non-registration issue in the hope of a 3 x pay out, not least because it was not strictly necessary for a new contract to be drawn up.