Advice Needed:landlord hasnt protected deposit and wont return all of it

clutton_2

"there has been at least one" - would you risk a court hearing and all the time and cost and fuss that entails for a one-off small claims court appearance which is a non-precedent-setting decision - for £35 ?? with an outside chance of getting 3xdeposit ?

move on.....

Colincbayley

clutton wrote: »

"there has been at least one" - would you risk a court hearing and all the time and cost and fuss that entails for a one-off small claims court appearance which is a non-precedent-setting decision - for £35 ?? with an outside chance of getting 3xdeposit

YES.

You seem to be missing the point, it is not over £35. As you know I am not a lover of the TDS, however, it was designed for just this situation.

If the LL has failed to protect the deposit within 14 days of it being paid, and or if they have failed to provide the prescribed information, then the tenant/ ex tenant has a right to pursue the LL for a sum equal to 3 times the deposit amount.

As I have said many, many times before. It doesn't matter if the deposit has been returned to the tenant and it does not matter if the tenancy has ended. Otherwise what would be the point.
Bit like robbing a bank, getting caught out, give the money back and saying well it's OK i've giving you your money back.

The law is an !!!! on this issue, judges don't know which way to turn. However I am one of the few who HAVE put my money where my mouth is and won on behalf of a tenant ( Not my own case! )

S.213/4 of the 2004 housing act should be changed in order to clear this matter up, but as long as the tax man has his nose in it, then is won't.
( end of rant )

clutton_2

but, colin, in my view, and rightly so, some judges have adopted the "common sense" approach and viewed the situation as far less serious if the tenant has actually received their deposit back (albeit less £35 as in this case) - which has to be a far less serious offence than not getting any of it back...

to adopt a hierarchy of culpability seems eminently sensible in any law...

Colincbayley

Agreed Clutton.
I would however like them to take it further and scrap the whole damm thing, it is after all only a tax raising piece of law.
But it should be for the OP to decide if they do or do not want to take action and therefore it is down to us to provide 'full and accurate' advice.

clutton_2

how i agree Colin - since deposit schemes seem to be far more partial to tenants tales than landlords, and since neither party has to use the Schemes Arbitration, but can force the other party to take them to court, i cannot see that tenants are in any better position now than before the 2004 Act.

If there is a serious deduction dispute.... it will still be long and drawn out and expensive for both parties via the courts... no different to prior to 2004.....

colin have you any links for court cases involving deposit disputes in which either LL or tenant refused to use Deposit arbitration ?

Colincbayley

clutton wrote: »

colin have you any links for court cases involving deposit disputes in which either LL or tenant refused to use Deposit arbitration ?

Nope, nothing. To be honest I can't be bothered with any of the deposit issues ( Hence I just stopped collecting deposits on my own rentals ) I only got dragged into the whole saga by one of my new tenants who was getting tucked up by her previous LL/Agent, and it just wasn't fair ( Can't let these people get away with P*ssing on the little guy/girl )

Arbitration, courts and A*se wipe should all just go burn in hell.:T

theartfullodger

A pretty standard AST.

Just because there are lots of ASTs like it disnae make it right...