Tenants' Deposit Scheme

littlemissmoney

conner1 wrote: »

Am I interpreting this correctly - A tenant say paid a bond in 2004
to the LL and stays at the same address. After April 2007 the LL issues
a new tenancy agreeement, and the same bond is retained. This situation is
excempt from the Tenants deposit scheme and no penalty can be made against
the LL for failing to comply with it as the bond was retained and not received.

Most grateful for any advice

No, you are not correct. I think you had better protect it pronto

Notlob

littlemissmoney wrote: »

No, you are not correct. I think you had better protect it pronto

To protect or not to protect, that is the question. I certainly wouldn't rely on unqualified opinion from posters as even qualified opinion is divided on this issue.

Littlemissmoney, I do not know your background, I am simply using your reply as an example!

Notlob

conner1

Thanks for reply. I`m not an expert but think that the wording in the legislation -deposits received after April 2007 is distinct from deposits retained after continuation with a new fixed agreement

When you say that opinion is divided do you mean that here have been different judgements at small claims courts regarding tenants claiming against landlords for non compliance with the deposit scheme.

sooz

The problem is the wording in the legislation is so badly written, it's open to interpretation.

Hence a judge might agree with you, or might not.

Certainly the scheme administrators think that when a new AST is issued to current tenants post April 07, the inital deposit (pre-07) should be protected.

https://www.depositprotection.com/Public/Legislation.aspx

conner1

Thanks for info. Does anyone know anything to the effect that if you take a
LL to small claims court for non-compliance with the deposit scheme and claim three times the amount of the deposit, that the LL can retrospectively join the scheme and as long as this is before the hearing, the tenants claim is invalidated?

Notlob

sooz wrote: »

The problem is the wording in the legislation is so badly written, it's open to interpretation.

Hence a judge might agree with you, or might not.

Certainly the scheme administrators think that when a new AST is issued to current tenants post April 07, the inital deposit (pre-07) should be protected.

https://www.depositprotection.com/Public/Legislation.aspx

I think the wording is "ok". The problem is that the Q&A list the government put out created the confusion. I think it was Q46 that stated that deposits had to be protected on renewals post April 2007 if tenancy started prior to April 2007. That suggested the word "Received" in the legislation also referred to implied receipt, meaning that as a new tenancy was created by renewal, it was viewed that the deposit was paid back to the tenant and received again for the renewal. Obviously, no money movement took place but this technicality created the confusion.

The scheme administrators simply applied Q46 to there thinking in a move to prevent litigation from Landlords. In fact, if I recall, the DPS initially stated that there was no need to protect deposits on renewals until the realisation of Q46 hit home. Think about it, if the DPS had stuck to their guns and case law proved them wrong, well, costly mistake. However, by going with the flow, who would sue them if case law determined there was no need to protect deposits on renewals.

I have always felt that the "Received" deposit meant exactly that, not implied receipt, therefore deposit in this situation did not require protection.

The above is simply my viewpoint.

Notlob

clutton_2

i have lodged all my deposits on AST renewals as well as on new ASTs since April 2007 - i would rather be "caught" complying with the letter of the law than risk 3 times a deposit plus court costs plus all the time that involves me with. National Landlords association are recommending deposit schemes for all ASTS - new or renewaola

Notlob

clutton wrote: »

i have lodged all my deposits on AST renewals as well as on new ASTs since April 2007 - i would rather be "caught" complying with the letter of the law than risk 3 times a deposit plus court costs plus all the time that involves me with. National Landlords association are recommending deposit schemes for all ASTS - new or renewaola

Agreed. Although I am always 99.999% right :rolleyes: the 0.001% wrong could have been mighty expensive, so I also took the cautious route.

Notlob

Scampy

I would think whether the renewed tenancy agreement states a deposit was taken or not would come into play, if they have stated a deposit was taken on the agreement made after April 2007 then it should be put in the scheme however some landlords will put nil on a renewed TA. I don't know how this would all go in court though!