Tenancy Deposit Scheme - Bad Landlord!

50plusabit

It may not do any harm to write to the LL stating that you have taken advice regarding the deposit, which you believe has not been protected, therefore if the deposit is not returned to you in full, within 14 days, you will be taking legal action to recover the deposit + 3x. If your are incorrect, you require the LL to furnish you with the details of the scheme.
If he is shady, this might push him to return it.
Good luck.

Planner

Premier wrote: »

The issue is not about punishment. No crime has been committed. The legislation is about protecting tenants deposits from rogue LLs that refuse to give the deposit back without reason at the end of the tenancy.

You really should have ensured the deposit was protected when you gave the deposit to the LL, well within 14 days.

As you didn't do that, the law wasn't designed to protect you. It's back to the old method of asking the LL for the deposit to be returned and if all else fails to asking a court to demand the LL returns it.

Quite a few contridictions here!

1) The legislation is about protecting deposits from rouge landlords - this landlord would come under the definition of a 'rouge landlord' as he has broken the law.

2) YOU should have ensured the deposit was protected - No. The Landlord should have ensured the deposit was protected, per his responsibility under the law.

3) The law wasnt designed to protect you!!!! - :rotfl: In your first paragraph you state how the legislation is about protecting deposits from rouge landlords!

You need to your LL stating that the deposit needs to be protected or returned within 7 days. If you here nothing or your request isnt complied with - The procedure then is a Letter Before Action (LBA). Write to your LL giving him a further 7 days to protect or return the deposit. Along with your LBA print off and fill in the N208 Part 8 Claim form, so that he can see you mean business. Hopefull, you should get the deposit protected or returned then. If not submit the claim at the county court. Keep in mind that the landlord may then retrospectivley protect your deposit. If this happens, you should not withdraw your claim until the issue is dealt with to your satisfaction through the TDS scheme. Once it is, withdraw the N208 claim and submit an N1 county court claim (or moneyclaim online) for the £150 N208 fee + the N1 fee.

Come back if you need help with the TDS wording. I agree with the views above about Premier's apparent vested intrests!

AWT19

Premier wrote: »

The issue is not about punishment. No crime has been committed. The legislation is about protecting tenants deposits from rogue LLs that refuse to give the deposit back without reason at the end of the tenancy.

You really should have ensured the deposit was protected when you gave the deposit to the LL, well within 14 days.

As you didn't do that, the law wasn't designed to protect you. It's back to the old method of asking the LL for the deposit to be returned and if all else fails to asking a court to demand the LL returns it.

Premier, after some further research into this, I feel I need to disagree with you here.

1) The Tenancy Act 2004 clearly states that "Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received."
- Clearly whether I chased this up or not does not remove the LL's obligation to complete this requirement, which he hasnt done.

2) You say "No crime has been committed"

Are you suggesting that the Tenancy Act 2004 is merely a recommendation for LL's?

The Tenancy Act 2004 is indeed very clear on what happens should the LL fails to meet his requirement

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.

(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

I'm not sure how you can argue that this Act doesnt apply. Clearly the LL has failed to meet the requirements as stipulated under the act, and it clearly states what happens in this (dare I say water-tight? ) case.

In fact on this blog, it talks about some successful cases against the LL.
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/07/tenancy-deposit-protection-62-failure.html

You're thoughts?

sooz

Planner wrote: »

Quite a few contridictions here!



2) YOU should have ensured the deposit was protected - No. The Landlord should have ensured the deposit was protected, per his responsibility under the law. ....true, but any tenant should realise this once the 14 days are up. If they've had no prescribed info, this is the time to start asking about deposit protection, not waiting til the tenancy has ended.



You need to your LL stating that the deposit needs to be protected or returned within 7 days.

Why? the OP wants his deposit back asap, protecting it now after the end of the tenancy will not help him in this respect whatsoever. Certainly write to ask for its return, but why ask for it to be protected now?

furthermore, Premier is quite right that the OP's expectations of the 10 days for the deposit return are rather high. This is the time the DPS estimates that they return a deposit by, AFTER it has been agreed by both parties.

Planner

AWT19 wrote: »

Premier, after some further research into this, I feel I need to disagree with you here.

1) The Tenancy Act 2004 clearly states that "Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received."
- Clearly whether I chased this up or not does not remove the LL's obligation to complete this requirement, which he hasnt done.

2) You say "No crime has been committed"

Are you suggesting that the Tenancy Act 2004 is merely a recommendation for LL's?

The Tenancy Act 2004 is indeed very clear on what happens should the LL fails to meet his requirement

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.

(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

I'm not sure how you can argue that this Act doesnt apply. Clearly the LL has failed to meet the requirements as stipulated under the act, and it clearly states what happens in this (dare I say water-tight? ) case.

In fact on this blog, it talks about some successful cases against the LL.
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/07/tenancy-deposit-protection-62-failure.html

You're thoughts?

His thoughts will be that breaking the '14 day rule' is not one of the two reasons listed for bringing a claim to court, and he would be correct. If the deposit is protected late, it appears a TDS non-complaince claim will fail.

Planner

sooz wrote: »

Why? the OP wants his deposit back asap, protecting it now after the end of the tenancy will not help him in this respect whatsoever. Certainly write to ask for its return, but why ask for it to be protected now?

furthermore, Premier is quite right that the OP's expectations of the 10 days for the deposit return are rather high. This is the time the DPS estimates that they return a deposit by, AFTER it has been agreed by both parties.

So it can be dealt with through the scheme arbitration process and to comply with the law. Part of bringing a case to court is about showing that you have explored all options before submitting a claim. A landlord with every intention of returning the deposit will return it rather than chosing the option of protecting it, so it wont dely the O/P return of the depoit IF the landlord has the intention of returning it.

Premier_2

AWT19 wrote: »

...You're thoughts?

New user account set up. :rolleyes:

Seems an expert in the subject matter all along. :rolleyes:

Usual posse jumping in to attack. :rolleyes:

My fault I suppose. Too trusting! I should have realised by the distinctive font used in the OP.

AWT19

Planner wrote: »

His thoughts will be that breaking the '14 day rule' is not one of the two reasons listed for bringing a claim to court, and he would be correct. If the deposit is protected late, it appears a TDS non-complaince claim will fail.

The is true, but the case in point here is that the LL hasnt protected the deposit at all, and we moved out 2 weeks ago, and are still waiting for our deposit.

The 2 reasons lists for bring a claim to court are
213(6) The information required by subsection must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect,

and

is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, as the case may be.
So surely this could be brought in front of a caught, as clearly the LL has broken the laws under the Tenancy Act 2004 right?

By the way I really appreciate your help and input.

tbs624

AWT19 wrote: »

.....Clearly whether I chased this up or not does not remove the LL's obligation to complete this requirement, which he hasnt done.

2) You say "No crime has been committed"

Are you suggesting that the Tenancy Act 2004 is merely a recommendation for LL's?

The law *has* been broken but the remedy (3x the deposit amount) is a civil law award, rather than a criminal law sanction. It is to be hoped that when LL registration eventually comes in in England & Wales, as it has in Scotland, that any LL who has been taken to court over non-scheme registering of a tenant's deposit would find him/herself either unable to register & thereforeunable to continue to let property or be subject to close scrutiny of his/her business methods. The only way that matters will be improved is if those who have personal experience of the way the law is failing to do what it was intended to do voice their justifiable concerns loud and long to their MPs, the Housing Minister, and housing/legal advocacy groups such as the CAB or Shelter.

AWT19

OP?

sorry... new here.