Tenant taking me to court - TDS - will I be ok?

Emma1973

The idea of the TDS, AWT19, was to protect tenants from landlords who would frequently keep deposits for no valid reason. You now have your deposit back, why would you want or think there could be more to claim?

MissMoneypenny

Emma1973 wrote: »

The idea of the TDS, AWT19, was to protect tenants from landlords who would frequently keep deposits for no valid reason. You now have your deposit back, why would you want or think there could be more to claim?

Because the landlord didn't comply with the law. Why should the good landlords comply and protect the deposit, if the bad landlords aren't?

Interestingly, there was a post on the Shelter forums from a council employee (? - can't find the post now) who said that they pursued landlords who didn't protect the deposit, even after the tenancy had ended. Their arguement was that a landlord should not be allowed to evade the law just because he didn't get caught at the time he committed the offence.

MissMoneypenny

ConfusedLandl0rd09 wrote: »

He says that he "does not accept this payment as full and final settlement" and that "this became a matter for the court to decide when the claim was lodged".

It sounds like your ex tenant may have been taking legal advice.

AWT19

Emma1973 wrote: »

The idea of the TDS, AWT19, was to protect tenants from landlords who would frequently keep deposits for no valid reason. You now have your deposit back, why would you want or think there could be more to claim?

So laws are now just recommendations are they? A tenant should not have to wait 5 months to get there deposit after a LL makes unfair deductions and then only pays them back after the tenant has gone to the time and the expense to go to court.
By submitting our claim, we were only doing what the Act told us to do.

Colincbayley

ConfusedLandl0rd09 wrote: »

I see your points, but I firmly believe that the wording of the Act is such that a landlord can return the tenant in full deposit, and not fact the 3x fine. The wording states that if the Landlord returns the deposit, the judge cant rule the return or protection, and therefore cant rule the 3x penalty.

But the tenant has returned part of the deposit to me. Surely he cant do this? The amount has been paid! On what basis should I argue against this in court? What will a judge think of this?

I have experience of this matter, both as an experienced LL ans also as an advisor to a tenant who took her OLD LL to court ( And won )

The facts are: The tenant paid you a deposit, you failed to protect that deposit, you failed to provide the tenant with the prescribed information as required under the 2004 housing act. Your tenant is taking you to court for 3 X the deposit amount. YOU WILL LOSE.
The law is very, very clear. It is no good you just giving the balance of the deposit back.
The wording of the housing states that in this set of circumstances the judge MUST ( not may ) award the tenant 3X the deposit as a penalty, and then require you to protect the deposit or return it to the tenant in full.

You have no defence.

( I would also like to point out that it is MY view that this part of the housing act is an !!!!, however the law is the law )
Sorry.

Ulfar

Colincbayley wrote: »

( I would also like to point out that it is MY view that this part of the housing act is an !!!!, however the law is the law )
Sorry.

You may think this part of the law is an !!!! but it is working, tenants now are getting deposits back whereas before they would probably have given up.

Have there been any cases where the tenant has won after taking the LL to court, where the LL subsequently gave back the deposit before the court date or protected it before the court date ?

Colincbayley

Ulfar wrote: »

You may think this part of the law is an !!!! but it is working, tenants now are getting deposits back whereas before they would probably have given up.

Have there been any cases where the tenant has won after taking the LL to court, where the LL subsequently gave back the deposit before the court date or protected it before the court date ?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, the reason I think this part of the law is an !!!!, is the reasons why it was added to the 2004 housing act.
The government don't give 2 hoots about tenants or LL's for that matter. The reason they added this to the act is so that HMRC can collect all the data from the TDS and then make sure that the LL's all paid their taxes. HMRC have already requested this data from the schemes.
The Taxman is getting tenants to do his dirty work for him! Thats why I think the law is an !!!!, it could be a lot better written.

Saying that, As I have said, the law is the law and we must abide by it.

In answer to your second question, YES, the case I helped MY tenant with against her previous LL, almost the same set of circumstances as the OP.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting rid of rouge LL's, but I am also not keen on sly bits added to acts dressed up to be for the tenants protections ( if that makes sense )

Ulfar

Colincbayley wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, the reason I think this part of the law is an !!!!, is the reasons why it was added to the 2004 housing act.
The government don't give 2 hoots about tenants or LL's for that matter. The reason they added this to the act is so that HMRC can collect all the data from the TDS and then make sure that the LL's all paid their taxes. HMRC have already requested this data from the schemes.
The Taxman is getting tenants to do his dirty work for him! Thats why I think the law is an !!!!, it could be a lot better written.

Saying that, As I have said, the law is the law and we must abide by it.

In answer to your second question, YES, the case I helped MY tenant with against her previous LL, almost the same set of circumstances as the OP.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting rid of rouge LL's, but I am also not keen on sly bits added to acts dressed up to be for the tenants protections ( if that makes sense )

It makes perfect sense and this is why they are introducing a license for landlords. However you could play devils advocate and say this wouldn't be necessary if there weren't a lot of landlords out there who aren't declaring this income and paying tax on it.

If only the government would take on some of the really big tax evaders, not going to happen is though when they are going to need jobs of some of them next year.

Colincbayley

Ulfar wrote: »

It makes perfect sense and this is why they are introducing a license for landlords. However you could play devils advocate and say this wouldn't be necessary if there weren't a lot of landlords out there who aren't declaring this income and paying tax on it.

If only the government would take on some of the really big tax evaders, not going to happen is though when they are going to need jobs of some of them next year.

As a landlord, Look after your tenant, your property, pay your tax, stick to the rules = won't go far wrong.

AWT19

Colincbayley wrote: »

I have experience of this matter, both as an experienced LL ans also as an advisor to a tenant who took her OLD LL to court ( And won )

The facts are: The tenant paid you a deposit, you failed to protect that deposit, you failed to provide the tenant with the prescribed information as required under the 2004 housing act. Your tenant is taking you to court for 3 X the deposit amount. YOU WILL LOSE.
The law is very, very clear. It is no good you just giving the balance of the deposit back.
The wording of the housing states that in this set of circumstances the judge MUST ( not may ) award the tenant 3X the deposit as a penalty, and then require you to protect the deposit or return it to the tenant in full.

Colincbailey - thanks for your post. I'm a tenant in the same situation as described here, with the LL returning the deposit after the claim was lodged to defeat the claim on the basis that the judge cant order the 3x penalty s214(4) if he cant order the deposit to be returned or protected S214(3) due to the 'must also' wording. Seems to me that the wording is in favour of the LL if the deposit is returned... thoughts?

Did this come up in the case with your tenant friend?

Also did it come up that only the tenant and not ex-tenants can apply?

Thanks!