Appeal court decision on Deposit protection

dkmax_2

It would have been potentially beneficial to their cause if the tenant's lawyers had referred to Parliamentary proceedings. It should also be stressed that one LJ did not agree and this was a 2-1 ruling.

Personally I find this decision an abomination. It is clear to a blind man on a galloping horse that a strict liability penalty was envisaged. It is the landlord's legal responsibility to protect the deposit and to be able to evade this though forgetfulness or any other convenient excuse, even if true, is to fly in the face of the intention of the legislation.

The notion of "ambushing" is absurd. Most AST contracts say the deposit will be protected within the statutory time-frame (was breach of contract considered?). Can other clauses of the contract be so ignored until prompted? Can a tenant avoid paying rent each month unless explictly asked every time?

A tenant is now back to square one. You can try to get your deposit back only if you can afford to take it to court. The benefits of the arbitration schemes are out the window and if your deposit has been p*ssed up against the wall, then tough.

The message is do not pay a deposit.

clutton_2

As a LL i agree utterly with dkmax... this ruling is wrong... however.. their lordships can only rule on what was Written in the Act - not what we all hoped it said - for several years now folks have been saying Housing Act 2004 must have been the poorest written Act in recent housing history and these judges have now confirmed that.....

omen666

To the OP, are you sure the text is not from Painsmith Solicitors? They are very well known in the Housing market

clutton_2

thanks omen.. a typo which i will correct...