Landlord deposit dispute

clutton_2

""Not the date that the T moves in which determines it but the date on which the deposit is received by the LL/LA""

OP said ""Just finished renting a house we had been in for the last 3 years - if he moved in before April 5th the Deposit protection schemes were not in force.. (we both know they would be if he had signed a subsequent AST)

Enfieldian

clutton wrote: »

""Not the date that the T moves in which determines it but the date on which the deposit is received by the LL/LA""

OP said ""Just finished renting a house we had been in for the last 3 years - if he moved in before April 5th the Deposit protection schemes were not in force.. (we both know they would be if he had signed a subsequent AST)

However, they also said that the deposit had been registered in May of this year.

A tad late, perhaps, unless this was the first renewal, but unlikely bearing in mind that we are only in July now.....

clutton_2

rightly or wrongly courts seem to have adopted the view that if the deposit is lodged before any court case that they have not awarded the 3times penalty....

we will see what judgement the 2 recent cases before the High Court come up with in the autumn...

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

""Not the date that the T moves in which determines it but the date on which the deposit is received by the LL/LA"" (quoting me)

OP said ""Just finished renting a house we had been in for the last 3 years - if he moved in before April 5th the Deposit protection schemes were not in force.. (we both know they would be if he had signed a subsequent AST)

Erm, it was April 6th 2007.

You misunderstand the point - the statute does not say that time starts ticking from when a T moves in to a property. The relevant part is the date on which the deposit is deemed to have been received.Thus you could have had a T who signed up and paid their deposit on the 5th April 2007, with the contract starting on the 5th April 2007, but with the T not moving in ( because they choose to) until on or after the 6th April 2007. The LL in such a scenario would not be obliged to scheme register that deposit.

From the Housing Act 2004, s213

"Requirements relating to tenancy deposits

(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.
(2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3) 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."


My highlighting.

So,it's not the date on which the T moved inwhich is the relevant bit.


Had the T then signed a new FT,at some point after the expiry of the original FT, the deposit would be deemed to have been received afresh as part of that and should, at that point, be registered as you say.

Ritty182

Update - landlord has made an offer that i get £149!!!

Has taken off cost of new carpet, I have of course rejected and replied with details of betterment etc.

Will wait their reply.