Tenancy Deposit Scheme - I'm utterly confused

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

What can T do about that? He can sue for 3 x but the tenancy could end before it gets heard and oops the T has lost. Or L can protect on the court steps and and oops T has lost again. In losing T probably has to pay costs. It seems to be the best a T can do is sabre rattle and hope L doesn't realise how toothless the law is?

As per my previous post , HA2004 does not only say that landlord should pay 3x deposit, but also that person holding the deposit must pay it back.
So I'm wondering whether T could just start a money claim for full refund on this ground, or whether such claim should also go through the same track as a 3x deposit claim.

N79

franklee wrote: »

Right so say T checks and it's not in a scheme and L ignores T's request to comply. What can T do about that? He can sue for 3 x but the tenancy could end before it gets heard and oops the T has lost. Or L can protect on the court steps and and oops T has lost again. In losing T probably has to pay costs.

No, the Court of Appeal dealt with the costs issue in Gladehurst vs Hashemi. The court stated that if a T launches court action and then the LL protects the deposit then the LL should pay the Ts costs.

Its in para 27, with my highlighting:

"The cut-off date for compliance is the hearing date. In a case where compliance by the landlord post-dates the issue of the proceedings but occurs prior to the hearing date then the Court will likewise have no power to make a s.214 order but the tenant will be able to recover his costs"

N79

jjlandlord wrote: »

As per my previous post , HA2004 does not only say that landlord should pay 3x deposit, but also that person holding the deposit must pay it back.
So I'm wondering whether T could just start a money claim for full refund on this ground, or whether such claim should also go through the same track as a 3x deposit claim.

Since the T would be asking the court to make an order under s214 (exactly as before with the 3x "penalty") then it would not be a small claims track case.

G_M

franklee wrote: »

Right so say T checks and it's not in a scheme and L ignores T's request to comply. What can T do about that? He can sue for 3 x but the tenancy could end before it gets heard and oops the T has lost. Or L can protect on the court steps and and oops T has lost again. In losing T probably has to pay costs. It seems to be the best a T can do is sabre rattle and hope L doesn't realise how toothless the law is? (I know it means L can't serve a S21 but that's not really of much use if it's T who wants to leave).

1) in most cases where a T asks the LL why the deposit is not registered the LL then registers it
2) if T does this in the first month or two (sensible!) then the case would be heard before the (usually minimum) 6 month tenancy ended.
3) I beleive if theapplication was made to the court before the tenacy ended the 3 x penalty would apply even if the case was not heard till later
4) if LL protects the deposit "on the court steps" the T can still claim costs

franklee

N79 wrote: »

No, the Court of Appeal dealt with the costs issue in Gladehurst vs Hashemi. The court stated that if a T launches court action and then the LL protects the deposit then the LL should pay the Ts costs.

Its in para 27, with my highlighting:

"The cut-off date for compliance is the hearing date. In a case where compliance by the landlord post-dates the issue of the proceedings but occurs prior to the hearing date then the Court will likewise have no power to make a s.214 order but the tenant will be able to recover his costs"

G_M wrote: »

1) in most cases where a T asks the LL why the deposit is not registered the LL then registers it
2) if T does this in the first month or two (sensible!) then the case would be heard before the (usually minimum) 6 month tenancy ended.
3) I beleive if theapplication was made to the court before the tenacy ended the 3 x penalty would apply even if the case was not heard till later
4) if LL protects the deposit "on the court steps" the T can still claim costs

Thanks to you both, that makes sense. I had thought the prevailing advice after the above mentioned cases was it isn't practical for a T to use a 3x claim under any circumstances as it's very expensive to do and the tenant will lose. So it's nice to hear the legislation does still have some practical use in forcing protection at no eventual cost to the T, it's just he has to get the claim in whilst the tenancy is still running and be able to initially pay for it but he will get that back. That's not so bad.

franklee

G_M wrote: »

3) I beleive if theapplication was made to the court before the tenacy ended the 3 x penalty would apply even if the case was not heard till later

This is the point that most worried me, if the tenancy ends after the application to court but before the hearing. Interesting that the LL can't protect after the tenancy has ended.