Tenancy Deposit- Appeal Case - Prescribed Info needs to be in full

tbs624

Both Ts and LLs may want to check out this report over at Nearly Legal (Ayannuga v Swindells)

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/11/informing-deposits/

LLs should check that they have given their Ts the full and proper prescribed information from the tenancy desposit scheme otherwise they run the risk of getting whacked for 3 x the deposit equivalent despite deposit being registered.

There is an additional report available here

FireWyrm

Oh, that'll trip a few landlords up I'm sure.

I can see the lower courts' point though, the information about where it was held was supplied, the tenant need only look on the correct website for the information regarding how to dispute deductions etc.

Fire_Fox

Bumping so a few more read this.

teeni

This ruling is brilliant , too many landlords think the tenancy deposit rules dont apply to them and only protect the deposit when the tenant challenges the use of a s21.

Also good to be able to use it as a counter claim when ll issues on rent arrears opreviously only ben able to defeat such action with claim for disrepair.

But given it s the first case that has reached the court of appeal we will see what follows if other cases reach that point.

teeni

FireWyrm wrote: »

Oh, that'll trip a few landlords up I'm sure.

I can see the lower courts' point though, the information about where it was held was supplied, the tenant need only look on the correct website for the information regarding how to dispute deductions etc.

And if they havent got access to the internet how can they simply look it up, despite the fact that internet is wide spread not every body has access to it.

The regulations are clear in what the landlord has to do , why is it so difficult to comprehend, surely if you are a business man/woman you shoudl find out the legalities of your trade..

the tenancy regulations came in originally in april 2007 and yet today i spent a good hour explaining to a landlord why the s21 notice she had issued a client was worthless and if she issued court proceedings we would assist our client to defend it and at that point would also apply for a penalty to be awarded against her.

My client doesnt want to do either but cant get the help she needs to move on from a bond scheme until she is actually facing homelessness and that takes a valid notice that can actually be relied upon

tbs624

FireWyrm wrote: »

I can see the lower courts' point though, the information about where it was held was supplied, the tenant need only look on the correct website for the information regarding how to dispute deductions etc.

Except that the Housing Act 2004 ( as amended by the Localism Act 2011) and the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 make it clear that the LL must provide specific information to the T and the wording does not say that the LL is simply able to tell the T where s/he can go and look up any of this information online for him/herself. Looks pretty clear to me.

As Teeni says, not everyone has internet access.

<sebb>

Wow! While it was obvious the old legislation had no teeth I cannot help thinking that this is a step too far and I say this as a tenant! Why I can't understand us why the three times penalty was applied when the court had the discretion to levy a lower penalty in this seemingly minor oversight. Especially since the tenant had rent arrears!

tbs624

As Teeni says, it's a good 7 years since the original Deposit Regs were bought in and yet there are still LLs who fail to do as the law requires.

Feel a letter coming on ? Find your MP and the Housing Minister at https://www.theyworkforyou.com


The system probably would have worked better if Ts were the ones responsible for scheme registering their own deposits...........

teeni

<sebb> wrote: »

Wow! While it was obvious the old legislation had no teeth I cannot help thinking that this is a step too far and I say this as a tenant! Why I can't understand us why the three times penalty was applied when the court had the discretion to levy a lower penalty in this seemingly minor oversight. Especially since the tenant had rent arrears!

Perhaps to show that landlords should by now have learned the rules!!!

tbs624

<sebb> wrote: »

Wow! While it was obvious the old legislation had no teeth I cannot help thinking that this is a step too far and I say this as a tenant! Why I can't understand us why the three times penalty was applied when the court had the discretion to levy a lower penalty in this seemingly minor oversight. Especially since the tenant had rent arrears!

My bolding. But [edit:it] is *not* a minor oversight - it is vital that a T knows how to challenge the retention of their deposit via the scheme's arbitration process, rather than via the small claims court, and the law stipulates that this information *has* to be provided by the LL to the T. Why would there be a specific Order (see link in my post above) to address the matter of the Prescribed Info if the provision or non provision of that Info in an appropriate form was something "minor"?

I'm delighted to see the CoA levying the full 3x deposit penalty.

As for the rent arrears, I don't condone Ts not paying their rent but if LLs don't want Ts to be able to defend possession proceedings in this way then they now have very clear affirmation of what they need to get on and do.

SirSnogALot

Hi There,

From what I can ascertain, this legislation can only be enforced from the 6th of April this year onwards?

My tenancy started in December 2010, then went onto a rolling tenancy because both agent and landlord forgot, I started a new AST just a few days before the new law came in April this year.

The agent / landlord did not send me the certificate in the 14 days in 2010, in fact, they didn't send it in 30 days either. More like 40.

And I never got the cert this year when I renewed either.

Can I assume that due to the dates, this is not enforceable?

Cheers,

Snogs.