Tenancy ended, deposit paid back (mostly), but deposit was never protected

MightyZoltar

Ok....

Tenancy started in May 2007, but was also renewed with a new contract in May 2008, so the deposit should have been protected.

The deductions were pretty small, so it's not really a big deal to me.

For me, it's more about the fact that they didn't communicate about the deposit, and have generally been a bit rubbish during the tenancy.

I'd need to think about whether I have the time and inclination to bother with the court route, but I wanted to check first that there was actually action I could take considering I have moved out and gotten my deposit back.

tbs624

littlemisslettings wrote: »

You actually seem to have been paid back relatively quickly, and possibly quicker than if the deposit had been protected!

Where there is agreement over any deductions, or that the deposit should be repaid in full, there frequently is no/little delay, particularly if either if the two insurance backed schemes is used.

littlemisslettings wrote: »

If your tenancy started before 6 April 2007 then the landlord had no obligation to register your deposit.

If the tenancy ran for an initial Fixed Term but the contract was subsequently renewed for a further FT then the deposit should have been scheme- registered at the time of renewal.

littlemisslettings wrote: »

In terms of making a retrospective claim for 3x the deposit if it was supposed to be protected, then my gut instinct is that you wouldnt get very far as the landlord has returned the deposit in a prompt manner.On the other hand, are you looking to dispute any deductions made from the deposit?

The OP has said that *not all* of the deposit was returned.

Mighty Zoltar - have you accepted the amount repaid to you as being in "full and final settlement"? Or do you want to challenge the deductions made? The deposit protection regs are there to prevent LLs making unilateral decisions about what should, or should not, be deducted from a tenant's deposit.