Looks like Letting Agent may not have protected our deposit

claaire98

Hi All

I'm after some advice from you very knowledgable people regarding deposit protection, apologies in advance for the lengthy post!

Our tenancy (finally) came to an end on the 10/05/12, the letting agent returned our deposit minus an amount for 'referencing' fees. We raised a dispute with the deposit protection scheme (mydeposits) who wrote back advising us that they no longer protect our deposit as each time an AST is issued the deposit must be re-registered and in this case it had not been re-registered with my depsosits. We only received 1 certificate for the whole of our tenancy (at the start of the first) and just assumed that this would cover our deposit for the whole time we were renting the property. The letting agent insisted on us signing a new contract every 6 months and paying the whole 6 months rent in advance, which we did 4 times in total. It now seems that the LA has not protected our deposit for the last 3 AST's that were signed.

We wrote to the LA and requested they forward details of the scheme under which our deposit has been held, LA telephoned yesterday and basically said there had been a 'mess' up with the deposit paperwork and if we agree to drop the dispute he would refund our disputed amount, we have again requested the LA forward written details of the scheme they registered our deposit with and are awaiting their response.

My question really is where do we go from here? can I contact the deposit schemes myself and ask if they covered our deposit for the period? can and would they provide the information? Mydeposits advised we take legal advice, but we wouldn't know where to start, is it a legal requirement for deposits to be protected?

Any advice would be much appreciated, TIA.

N79

claaire98 wrote: »

LA telephoned yesterday and basically said there had been a 'mess' up with the deposit paperwork and if we agree to drop the dispute he would refund our disputed amount.

This is the best outcome you would get in court so I suggest you settle the matter by taking up this offer of the LA (who have clearly made a mistake and failed to protect your deposit as required).

Edit: I miscounted the days and the above is not actually correct. I will post a corrected reply later if no-one else does in the meantime.

skintandscared_2

N79 wrote: »

This is the best outcome you would get in court so I suggest you settle the matter by taking up this offer of the LA (who have clearly made a mistake and failed to protect your deposit as required).

Not necessarily. As of 6th April 2012 the financial penalty for not protecting a tenant's deposit within 30 days of the tenancy commencing (or new agreement being entered into) is between 1 and 3 times the deposit. No wonder they want you to drop it and just walk away with your deposit. You could be entitled to anything up to triple your deposit for non-compliance!

N79

skintandscared wrote: »

Not necessarily. As of 6th April 2012 the financial penalty for not protecting a tenant's deposit within 30 days of the tenancy commencing (or new agreement being entered into) is between 1 and 3 times the deposit. No wonder they want you to drop it and just walk away with your deposit. You could be entitled to anything up to triple your deposit for non-compliance!

I noticed the date - after I hit post - the new provisions would have applied to the OPs tenancy from the 7th May.

tbs624

N79 wrote: »

This is the best outcome you would get in court so I suggest you settle the matter by taking up this offer of the LA (who have clearly made a mistake and failed to protect your deposit as required).

I think N79 is being very...erm.. generous - let's look back at what the OP has said

claaire98 wrote: »

. The letting agent insisted on us signing a new contract every 6 months and paying the whole 6 months rent in advance, which we did 4 times in total. It now seems that the LA has not protected our deposit for the last 3 AST's that were signed.

....so this LA appears to have "made a mistake" not just once but on those three separate occasions on which new FT ASTs were signed up for?

The LA seems able to function well enough to request that the OP paid up in advance for each of the the new FTs but conveniently forgets that the law requires that tenancy deposits are scheme registered and Ts are given the scheme's prescribed information. There were also plenty of reminders recently for errant LLs to get deposits registered before the Localism Act's changes to the deposit regs came in post April 6 2012.

My understanding is that where a tenancy deposit should have been scheme registered but has not been then a court would now have no choice but to levy a penalty on the LL of between one and three times the deposit equivalent.

Please can we stop making apologies for LAs and LLs who fail to meet the requirements of the law - it is over 5 years since the deposit regulations came in. Tenants absolutely should not still be having to do battle over getting their deposits registered.

OP - had this LA flagged those referencing fees up to you before simply deducting them from your deposit btw?

I would pursue the matter further - the LA/LL is trying to get off lightly.


(Edit- N79s follow up posts and skintandscareds not there when I started my response).

skintandscared_2

Shame really as the old provision were even better for the tenant! The LL had to register the deposit within 14 days (now 30) and the penalty was automatically 3 x the deposit (now it's 1-3 x, at the court's discretion).

skintandscared_2

tbs624 wrote: »

I think N79 is being very...erm.. generous - let's look back at what the OP has said


....so this LA appears to have "made a mistake" not just once but on those three separate occasions on which new FT ASTs were signed up for?

The LA seems able to function well enough to request that the OP paid up in advance for each of the the new FTs but conveniently forgets that the law requires that tenancy deposits are scheme registered and Ts are given the scheme's prescribed information. There were also plenty of reminders recently for errant LLs to get deposits registered before the Localism Act's changes to the deposit regs came in post April 6 2012.

My understanding is that where a tenancy deposit should have been scheme registered but has not been then a court would now have no choice but to levy a penalty on the LL of between one and three times the deposit equivalent.

Please can we stop making apologies for LAs and LLs who fail to meet the requirements of the law - it is over 5 years since the deposit regulations came in. Tenants absolutely should not still be having to do battle over getting their deposits registered.

OP - had this LA flagged those referencing fees up to you before simply deducting them from your deposit btw?

I would pursue the matter further - the LA/LL is trying to get off lightly.


(Edit- N79s follow up posts and skintandscareds not there when I started my reponse).

Totally agree - I would pursue it too. The fact that they have failed not once but three times to protect your deposit could well mean you receive 3 times the deposit back in compensation. Seriously, I bet the LA are praying you drop the matter and just take your full deposit back!!

RabbitMad

skintandscared wrote: »

Not necessarily. As of 6th April 2012 the financial penalty for not protecting a tenant's deposit within 30 days of the tenancy commencing (or new agreement being entered into) is between 1 and 3 times the deposit. No wonder they want you to drop it and just walk away with your deposit. You could be entitled to anything up to triple your deposit for non-compliance!

Do you really think any judge would award more - how much is at stake and how much was the deposit.

I would even suggest that if it got to court the judge might be forced to award the 1x deposit but would not award costs and as this would not be the small claims track it would be very costly for the OP.

Take the money and forget about it.

RabbitMad

skintandscared wrote: »

Totally agree - I would pursue it too. The fact that they have failed not once but three times to protect your deposit could well mean you receive 3 times the deposit back in compensation. Seriously, I bet the LA are praying you drop the matter and just take your full deposit back!!

Easy to say when its not your money at stake! Costs can be awarded against the OP and so whilst the OP might win it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

dt3887

would it not be up to 3x the deposit back for each time the deposit was not registered (the 3 times) so anything unto 9x the deposit?

N79

tbs624 wrote: »

....so this LA appears to have "made a mistake" not just once but on those three separate occasions on which new FT ASTs were signed up for?

I was being generous but it still could be one mistake (made many times) whereby the agent failed to realise that they needed to reprotect on renewal. Since the deposit was protected first time I think it a little premature to ascribe motives of malice rather than incompetence.

Has anyone done a text replacement following the localism act? Legislation.gov.uk have not yet tracked the changes into the housing act.