Partial rent refund if I move out mid month?

choccyface2006

Thanks again, there has never been any paperwork regarding the deposit protection scheme. Yes my original tenancy was for 6 months, then it was extended for 12 months at a time.

I am exceedingly houseproud so the house will look good once I move out so I expect my full deposit back but I will certainly look at all the helpful information you have shown me in case that doesn't happen. At the end of the day my LL and I have always got along fine so I don't want to end on a sour note.

Sarah

coldcazzie

choccyface2006 wrote: »

At the end of the day my LL and I have always got along fine so I don't want to end on a sour note.

I quite understand, and in fact it is that very reason that I didn't persue the fact that my own LL didn't protect our deposit when he should have, and then withheld it when I believe he should have returned it. I could have got it back, plus the extra for it not being protected, but chose not to for various reasons.

It was more the assertion that you had moved in before the schemes came into play and therefore it didn't need protecting that I wanted to challenge

Hope you get it sorted

(tbs624: you're right - you mentioned it before I did! my apologies )

G_M

Since last April. it no longer matters whether a tenancy originally started before or after 2007. ALL deposits need to be registered.

Localism Act 2011 (section 184 - updates to deposit scheme rules) Plain English explanation

You can check with each scheme yourself to see if it is registered.

Deposits

tbs624

G_M wrote: »

Since last April. it no longer matters whether a tenancy originally started before or after 2007. ALL deposits need to be registered.

Are you sure G_M - my understanding is that if the deposit was paid over prior to 6 Apr 2007 and there has been no new FT signed for since then the LL does *not* have to scheme register, despite other Localism Act changes


Edited to add - see below from Shelter's webpages:

A landlord's duty to protect a tenant's deposit

For tenancy deposits paid to a landlord or agent on or after 6 April 2012, within 30 days of receiving it they must:

• protect your deposit with a Government-backed scheme
• provide you with certain information.

For tenancy deposits paid to a landlord or agent between 6 April 2007 and 5 April 2012, they must

• protect your deposit with a Government-backed scheme by 6 May 2012
• provide you with certain information by 6 May 2012.

If you paid a deposit for a tenancy that started before 6 April 2007and your tenancy agreement hasn't been renewed since, different rules apply for unprotected deposits. However, if your tenancy agreement has been renewed since April 2007, your landlord must protect your deposit with a Government-backed scheme.

(My highlighting)

G_M

My understanding is certainly that the Localism Act gave LL's who had previously, legitimately, not registered deposits, 30 days to do so.

From the Communities.gov FAQs website:

What changes have been made to the Tenancy Deposit Protection legislation?



The legislation has been changed:

• To make it clear that penalties for non-compliance apply to a tenancy that has come to an end after 6 April 2012.

In other words, whereas previously the key date had been the tenancy start date (April 2007), it now applies also to any tenancy which ends after April 2012 (ie is ongoing at that date).

What about existing tenancies where the deposit is not protected?

Where a deposit taken for an assured shorthold tenancy before the 6 April 2012 has not already been protected in one of the government authorised schemes, the landlord or agent will need to protect the deposit within 30 days of 6 April 2012.

I believe the Shelter advice is either wrong, or simply not been updated.

Of course I may be wrong. And also I have no idea if this has yet been tested in the courts.

tbs624

Thanks for your [edit: response].

G_M wrote: »

My understanding is certainly that the Localism Act gave LL's who had previously, legitimately, not registered deposits, 30 days to do so.

From the Communities.gov FAQs website:


In other words, whereas previously the key date had been the tenancy start date (April 2007), it now applies also to any tenancy which ends after April 2012 (ie is ongoing at that date).


I believe the Shelter advice is either wrong, or simply not been updated.

Of course I may be wrong. And also I have no idea if this has yet been tested in the courts.

The rest of the Shelter page I quoted makes clear reference to the changes brought in by the Localism Act so it clearly *has* been updated.

There is also this from the TDS FAQs:

"I’ve been told that the changes apply to tenancies still running that started prior to the tenancy deposit legislation coming into force in April 2007. Is that right?

No. The Localism Act changes the time limits and penalties, but it does not extend the 2004 Housing Act legislation to cover Assured Shorthold tenancies that were in existence before April 2007. Only deposits taken for all Assured Shorthold Tenancies starting or renewed after that date have to be covered by a tenancy deposit protection scheme. Members who wish to take a conservative approach may wish to protect all deposits held in respect of ASTs by 6th May, even if they were taken before April 2007."

If you look on the Communities.gov page to which you link you will also see:
"Are the changes retrospective?

No. The amendments apply to any deposit received in connection with an assured shorthold tenancy which the Housing Act 2004 applies to and which was in effect on or after 6 April 2012."

Their wording seems ambiguous but the HA2004 did/does *not* apply to tenancy deposits received prior to 6 April 2007 (where that original FT is not followed by a further FT being signed up to )

Any relevant comments from anyone else?

G_M

I've had a closer reading of the Localism Act, The Housing Act (and the TDS guide to the Act) and suspect you are right. My initial interpretation was lifted from Landlordzone (though I can no longer find the reference!).

The legislation has been changed:

• To make it clear that penalties for non-compliance apply to a tenancy that has come to an end after 6 April 2012.

It now seems to me that the gist of this is
* not, as I'd thought, to alter the 2004 Act by applying registration requirements on all tenancies ending after implementation of the Localism Act (April 2012) - thus extending it to include those started before April 2007 (and ending after April 2012)
* but to alter the 2004 Act by allowing EX-tenants (ie those whose tenancy has ended (but only after the implementation date of the Localism Act - April 2012) to apply for penalties for non compliance of the tenancy they have left. It had not previously been possible to bring an action after the tenancy had ended.

Thanks for the correction tbs :beer:

tbs624

Thanks for your further comments G_M

G_M wrote: »

I've had a closer reading of the Localism Act, The Housing Act (and the TDS guide to the Act) and suspect you are right. My initial interpretation was lifted from Landlordzone (though I can no longer find the reference!).

LLZ don't always get it right, just as we don't on here;)

jjlandlord

The confusion, if there's any, likely comes from the commencement order of the localism act states that states:

Transitional etc. provisions: Tenancy Deposit Schemes

16.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments made by section 184 of the Act apply in respect of any tenancy deposit received by a landlord in connection with a shorthold tenancy where the tenancy was in effect on or after 6th April 2012.

As it's about the amendments it probably implies that it actually applies only to tenancies to which the HA2004 itself applies, but this is to be confirmed... I'm sure legal professionals have a clear(er) understanding.

In any case I'm not sure that there are that many ASTs which started prior to April 2007 and are still in effect. These would be periodic tenancies which started prior that date.

tbs624

jjlandlord wrote: »

In any case I'm not sure that there are that many ASTs which started prior to April 2007 and are still in effect.

Not sure what relevance your thoughts on that are? The numbers may not be huge but a fair proportion of LLs and Ts are happy for tenancies to remain as a FT for a number of years after FT expiry. That the numbers may be dwindling does not make any difference - the HA makes it clear that it is referring only to deposits which were effectively "received" after 6 April 2007.

jjlandlord wrote: »

These would be periodic tenancies which started prior that date.

That these tenancies would be perioidic is obvious, if no new FT was signed up for after the original FT expiry, although they may have not necessarily become periodic until some time after 6 April 2007.

As I said above, HA2004 (s213-215) does not apply to those tenancy deposits received prior to that date *except* where a new FT has subsequently been signed up to