Tenant deposit scheme

emsywoo123

Hi, any help would be appreciated:
Moved in May 2006 on 12 month AST, deposit paid.
Re-signed new 12 month AST MAy 2007.

I have now given notice, and I know that my deposit is not in a scheme. I am not clear wether it has to be, as there are 2 schools of thought. Does anybody have a definitive answer?
Many thanks
Em

Procrastinator333

Hey there,

Yes they definately should have put it in a scheme. Have a look at the attached link, there is loads of info on it and what to do.

I remember looking a while back and there was even talk of getting compensation beyond your deposit if the money was not in a scheme. Don't know if that was possible or not as in the end found out mine was in a scheme, so didn't bother digging any further!

Good luck....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/117280-tenancy-deposit-scheme.html

sooz

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Hi, any help would be appreciated:
Moved in May 2006 on 12 month AST, deposit paid.
Re-signed new 12 month AST MAy 2007.

I have now given notice, and I know that my deposit is not in a scheme. I am not clear wether it has to be, as there are 2 schools of thought. Does anybody have a definitive answer?
Many thanks
Em

According to (how they meant to word*) the legislation, yes your deposit should have been put into a scheme when you renewed your AST.

*trouble is, it was badly written

However, if you tried to take your LL to court to claim 3x the deposit, then it's up the the judges interpretation of when the deposit was received.

emsywoo123

sooz wrote: »

According to (how they meant to word*) the legislation, yes your deposit should have been put into a scheme when you renewed your AST.

*trouble is, it was badly written

However, if you tried to take your LL to court to claim 3x the deposit, then it's up the the judges interpretation of when the deposit was received.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: This is the problem!! I have a very unco-operative and dodgy landlord.........I am 99% sure he will try to keep the deposit.

sooz

That doesn't stop you taking him to the small claims court to reclaim your deposit - if necessary. Might be an idea to wait until you move out, & see how he handles the return of your deposit though Do you have a signed inventory?

It's only the claim for 3 times the deposit as a penalty that is iffy. You might win, you might not. It's a gamble.

emsywoo123

sooz wrote: »

That doesn't stop you taking him to the small claims court to reclaim your deposit - if necessary. Might be an idea to wait until you move out, & see how he handles the return of your deposit though Do you have a signed inventory?

It's only the claim for 3 times the deposit as a penalty that is iffy. You might win, you might not. It's a gamble.

I have been goggling away, and yes it seems I should be able to get it.........If I lose, either small claims or the 3.5 bit, do I have to pay costs?

Procrastinator333

Small claims court costs £30, no more no less....

tbs624

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Hey there,

Yes they definately should have put it in a scheme. Have a look at the attached link, there is loads of info on it and what to do........http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/117280-tenancy-deposit-scheme.html

Procrastinator - it maybe best not to tell folk that they something is definite and then provide a link to a thread that mentions where it is nothing of the sort.

There has been a recent similar case in which unfortunately a particular interpretation of the term "received" , as in when the deposit was received, was applied. The Judge maintained that the requirement to scheme-register the deposit under the HA 2004 did not apply because it was originally received prior to the relevant date.

So, never mind that the deposit forms a necessary part of a new contract signed after 6 April 2007, the fact that it was not returned to the tenant at the expiry of the original term and then physically received again post 06.04.07 by the LL for that new contract, meant that the LL had retained it rather than received it.

The poor wording of this legislation needs to be amended. It could simply say, as I've mentioned before, that where any tenant deposit forms a necessary part of a AST contract after the relevant date then it must be registered.

It is only an admin matter that it is retained by the LL from one contract to the next.

Or -best of all - why not just say that *all* tenants deposits whenever paid to a LL must be registered immediately and have done.

tbs624

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Small claims court costs £30, no more no less....

sigh - you maybe need to do some reading up..........

emsywoo123

tbs624 wrote: »

Procrastinator - it maybe best not to tell folk that they something is definite and then provide a link to a thread that mentions where it is nothing of the sort.

There has been a recent similar case in which unfortunately a particular interpretation of the term "received" , as in when the deposit was received, was applied. The Judge maintained that the requirement to scheme-register the deposit under the HA 2004 did not apply because it was originally received prior to the relevant date.

So, never mind that the deposit forms a necessary part of a new contract signed after 6 April 2007, the fact that it was not returned to the tenant at the expiry of the original term and then physically received again post 06.04.07 by the LL for that new contract, meant that the LL had retained it rather than received it.

The poor wording of this legislation needs to be amended. It could simply say, as I've mentioned before, that where any tenant deposit forms a necessary part of a AST contract after the relevant date then it must be registered.

It is only an admin matter that it is retained by the LL from one contract to the next.

Or -best of all - why not just say that *all* tenants deposits whenever paid to a LL must be registered immediately and have done.

Thank you tbs, for your detailed reply.
Do you have any advice about what I should do?

emsywoo123

tbs624 wrote: »

sigh - you maybe need to do some reading up..........

Oh dear, what does this mean?