Tenancy agreement and deposit

Santiago1_2

Jac_Raven wrote: »

A small point, but it should be worth remembering that if the annual rent exceeds £25k then it wouldn't be an AST and deposits don't need to be protected.

Also you may find out that if you try and cut the agents out of the picture they may sue him for the renewal commission anyway. You may need to see the contract he originally signed with them. Whilst the recent Foxton's case did discuss renewal fees, i think the only conclusion was fees that are hidden within the contract and not made clar are unfair, not the fees themselves.

As others have pointed out, there are many reasons why something may suddenly turn sour, and its better to have yourself protected. Also if he has several properties let out I'm not sure he could really be described as a amateur landlord.

Thanks for this comment. I pay less than 25K/year. I will not worry about how he discontinues his agreement with the LA - this will be his problem. In principle I am happy to continue with things as they are (and simply call the LL when any problem arises).

tbs624

Santiago1 wrote: »

Regarding the Painsmith's case referred to above, the link provided has confused me. The court decision seems to suggest that the LA is liable but it is not liable for paying back the 'standard' 3xdeposit penalty?? I am not very good with legal-speak so if somebody has a more clear understanding, please advise.

Many thanks

In that specific case the deposit was registered with the DPS, albeit late. Just as a T is able to defeat an action by his LL for repossession due to rent arrears, by paying all (or some) of the debt off immediately prior to a hearing, so it seems that LLs who don't register a deposit within the initial 14 days will escape being penalised if they scheme-register the deposit prior to any court hearing.

tbs624

casper_g wrote: »

Given that this is a tenancy that has been running continuously for several years, and the legislation only applies to deposits taken since 6th April 2007, a little more information is required to determine whether there was a requirement for the deposit to be lodged with a scheme. When exactly did the tenancy start? And when was the deposit paid?

The OP had said pretty early on that his tenancy agreement contained a clause which referred to the tenancy deposit schemes, which suggested that the dates would be appropriate for the regs to apply.

Bear in mind that it is not strictly the case that it only applies to deposits "taken" after 6 April 2007: if your original AST began, & deposit was paid, on a pre-regs date but subsequently a further Fixed Term was signed up for, after 6 April 2007, then the LL would be required to scheme register the deposit at that point.

tbs624

Jac_Raven wrote: »

A small point, but it should be worth remembering that if the annual rent exceeds £25k then it wouldn't be an AST and deposits don't need to be protected.

However, also see here

Jac_Raven wrote: »

As others have pointed out, there are many reasons why something may suddenly turn sour, and its better to have yourself protected. Also if he has several properties let out I'm not sure he could really be described as a amateur landlord.

It doesn't sound as though having this LA in place does offer protection, if neither LA nor LL has registered the OP's deposit. Generally, the reference to "amateur" LLs includes anyone who doesn't familiarise themselves with their legal obligations, anyone who doesn't take their property-letting activities seriously enough to act in a "professional" way. Unfortunately, that can be the case whether they have 1 or 31 properties and whether they have been letting for 1 year or 10 years

clutton_2

"" cannot predict the future but I cannot see why things could turn sour with the LL in the future if I had a tenancy agreement directly with him""

things will turn sour simply because this landlord does not know what the heck he is doing....... nice guy and all that makes no difference.

as a LL of 11 years, i abhor landlords like this who "dont know" what to do... he is running a business and should make it his business to find out - OR - leave it in the hands of the agent...

i think OP should stay with the agent - at least they seem to know marginally more than this legally-ignorant landlord

Sammy85_2

Jac_Raven wrote: »

Also you may find out that if you try and cut the agents out of the picture they may sue him for the renewal commission anyway. You may need to see the contract he originally signed with them. Whilst the recent Foxton's case did discuss renewal fees, i think the only conclusion was fees that are hidden within the contract and not made clar are unfair, not the fees themselves.

If the LL is not in the know with basic Legislation then i would seriously doubt whether he would be aware of anything like that his contract with his agents.


We have 1 property still stuck with agents, purely because the fee is £1800 (4xmonthly rent) to go private and keep the existing tenant. It would take 36 months to recoup that from the savings in agents fees, so it isnt worth doing. Im just quietly waiting for the agents to f""k up again and then i'll have grounds to pull it from them.

Santiago1_2

Thanks for everyone's comments. I have to say that I do not feel that I am the appropriate person to tell the LL what he should do with this agreement with the LA. If he is not aware of this resposibilities, this is something that he needs to deal with.

The reality is that I have now send a recorded delivery letter to the LA to reques the deposit back and to point out that all 3 deposit schemes know nothing about my deposit. And have heard nothing back yet.

Not sure what I should be doing next, perhaps simply wait for the money to arrive through the post (wishful thinking)...

BitterAndTwisted

Why didn't you write to the agents and ask them to confirm which deposit-protection scheme your deposit is lodged with? Asking for its return that would suggest to me that you intend to vacate the property but having read the thread that did not seem to be your intention. Has the landlord actually signified his intention to end the contract with the agents?

Santiago1_2

The landlord has already sent a letter to them to notify them that "their services are no longer required" and that "they will not renew their agreement". I have also received a copy of his letter.

The LL told me he has not handled my deposit at all, he does not want a deposit, if we have a direct agreement, and he advised me to go to the LA and ask for the deposit back.
I checked online for the deposit and it is not registered with the scheme named in the AST. Called all 3 schemes and it is not registered.

The letter I have sent to the LA asks for an explanation on where the deposit is and whether it has been registred as required withn 14 days. It also says that I have been notified by the LL that their agreement is to be terminated and therefore, I need to receive the deposit from them (as they will not manage the property and they have not passed the deposit to the landlord whom I will be dealing with from the end of the month).

Santiago1_2

As an update to this case, I have now received a letter from the LA with a cheque for the deposit and apologies for not registering it. The obvious thing will be to cash it and move on. But will this mean that, by doing so, I will sort of absolve them from their mistake (i.e. potentially 3xdeposit penalty). I am not keen on court cases or getting money for free (after all, assuming the cheque doesn't bounce, I suffered no real damage) but I wonder whether I should do something else rather than simply accept the money with thanks.

Perhaps I spend too much time thinking about this...Any views would be welcome