LL deposit scheme

marliepanda

Sorry but if you had complied with the law you wouldn't have this problem. The laws aren't in the tenants favour, you broke the law!!!

Return the deposit and issue the section 21 or they'll just be able to stay there not paying rent...

It's your own fault for not protecting the deposit. You'll have to take the hit for now and pursue through the courts for your loss... Good luck.

And no it's not DSS fraud as far as I am aware.

nikki1520

molly22 wrote: »

the tenant has paid £50 rent since the tenancy began 11 weeks ago and ive received £161 via the DSS which has now stopped.
so the arrears to today are £905.

if i return the £500 deposit, i will be £1405 out of pocket, and still have no house to rent out!

im despairing, why are horrid people allowed to treat good people like this and why are all the laws in the tenants favour, or does it just seem that way??

also as the tenant has kept all the DSS housing benefit payments instead of paying them to me is this DSS fraud?

thanks

How will returning the deposit leave you another £500 out of pocket - it isn't your mney to start with - or have you offset this in your head against the amount you're owed for rent?

As for the LHA payments, well, Tony and Gordon felt it was appropriate to teach benefit claimants fiscal responsibility by giving the money directly to them for them to pay their bills. If the tenant chooses not to do this, they may have made themselves "Intentionally homeless" and receive no help from the council in gaining new accommodation, but it's not fraud as far as the council are concerned (although common sense decrees it should be!)

On the upside, if it turns out the tenant isn't entitled to the benefit, it is them that has to pay it back instead of the hapless landlord who doesn't know they're secretly working/living together etc.

G_M

molly22 wrote: »

the tenant has paid £50 rent since the tenancy began 11 weeks ago and ive received £161 via the DSS which has now stopped.
so the arrears to today are £905.

what is the rent? And is it monthly? For a S8 Notice (ground 8 rent arrears mandatory) the arrears must be equal to 2 months rent both when the S8 is issued and when the case comes to court.

if i return the £500 deposit, i will be £1405 out of pocket, and still have no house to rent out!

Well - if you break the law (ie not registering the deposit) you pay the price. Sorry to be unsympathetic on this, but it's like saying "I've lost my job because they took my driving licence away because a got done for drunk driving."

Before getting in a car, you make sure you know what you're doing.

Before becoming a landlord.......

im despairing, why are horrid people allowed to treat good people like this and why are all the laws in the tenants favour, or does it just seem that way??

It just seems that way. In the 60s/70s tenants had huge protection & it was very hard for LLs to evict. Nowadays the S21 process means tenants can be booted out of their home with very little notice (2 months) for absolutely any reason that is NO fault of their own.

also as the tenant has kept all the DSS housing benefit payments instead of paying them to me is this DSS fraud?

No.

thanks

The deposit laws were introduced because large numbers of landlords failed to return deposits at the end of tenancies. They used feeble excuses, or even did not bother to give excuses.

Some LLs were just greedy. Some were themselves hard up and had already spent the deposit. Some were down-right criminal/evil. Some were just inefficient and forgot. Some were abroad and the tenant could not contact....

So tenants were given some protection.

I don't tar all, or even most, landlords with this (certainly not myself!!!), just as when I hear of tenants like yours I don't tar all tenants with the same brush.

But there is a balance to be struck between protecting tenants and protecting LLs.

One can argue for months over where that balance should be, who rips off who most often, and how, but there is no black & white solution.

molly22

so if the tenants are willing to vacate the property within 2 weeks for the price of the deposit will that be better for me than going through the courts, which i really don't want to do?

(i'm in no doubt that i can kiss any back rent goodbye whatever happens)

i can then get the property advertised and let and hopefully this time lodge my deposit correctly and get some nice rent-paying tenants!

simples:j!!

<sebb>

molly22 wrote: »

why are horrid people allowed to treat good people like this and why are all the laws in the tenants favour, or does it just seem that way??

Why are horrid landlords allowed to flout the law and not protect deposits (I'm not a business, I was forced to let my house out, I dint know what I was doing etc etc).

The localism act has finally closed a loophole, but despite many, many landlords still not complying, there is yet to be a case because it's costly to sue and most tenants don't want to go through the hassle of a court case.

G_M

<sebb> wrote: »

...
The localism act has finally closed a loophole, but despite many, many landlords still not complying, there is yet to be a case because it's costly to sue and most tenants don't want to go through the hassle of a court case.

Amazing! You've actually checked the records of each and every court to see if a case has been brought.....?

My own understanding (hearsay I admit) is that not only have cases been brought, but that in at least one case the LL had to pay 6 times the deposit as penalty:

3 x for failure to protect within 30 days plus another 3 x for failure to provide the Prescribed Information within 30 days.

FBaby

G_M wrote: »

It is designed as a penalty on the landlord - not as re-imbursement to the tenant (though the tenant does receive it)

The aim is to ensure LL's register deposits in a timely manner.

I don't have a complaint about it, I'm trying to understand the rationale (which usually prompts a change in law). I can understand a penalty to be given when/if the landlord fails to return the deposit in a timely manner, but why penalise the landlord who returns the deposit on time just because they didn't secure it within 30 days? What is depositing a deposit in a timely manner so important? Isn't what matters that the deposit ins RETURNED in a timely manner and penalty should be attached to that failing?

And even if it is considered right that such a penalty should apply to the landlord, why should it be the tenant who benefit from it so greatly when they haven't had any loss from that failing themselves? (assuming of course that they get their deposit back in due time).

G_M

FBaby wrote: »

I don't have a complaint about it, I'm trying to understand the rationale (which usually prompts a change in law). I can understand a penalty to be given when/if the landlord fails to return the deposit in a timely manner, but why penalise the landlord who returns the deposit on time just because they didn't secure it within 30 days? What is depositing a deposit in a timely manner so important? Isn't what matters that the deposit ins RETURNED in a timely manner and penalty should be attached to that failing?

And even if it is considered right that such a penalty should apply to the landlord, why should it be the tenant who benefit from it so greatly when they haven't had any loss from that failing themselves? (assuming of course that they get their deposit back in due time).

* landlord is abroad. Tenancy ends and LL fails to return deposit. Hard to get penalty...
* landlord goes bankrupt. Property repossessed. Deposit vanished
* LL fails to return depoait at end. Tenant forced to take legal action after moving out so has no deposit available for onward rental and has dragged out legal process relating to property he's left and he wants to 'move on with his life
* deductions from deposit by LL are disputed - if held by a scheme there is access to independant arbitration on conclusion of which deposit is given to appropriate party - rather than LL making the decision and forcing court action if tenant disagrees
* etc............

Far better to have deposit securely held by an impartial 3rd party. After all, this money belongs to the tenant. It is there in case the tenant defaults in some way, and the British system is 'innocent till proven guilty. Why should the LL hold it at all?

I somewhat agree about the tenant getting the 3 times penalty. Perhaps it should go to the public purse/court system.

But the tenant is being inconvenienced by the guilty LL's actions inasmuch as he has to go to court. He also might not bother if it's just the deposit itself he's claiming "too much hastle for a small return" so LL more likely to escape penalty.

The answer, like driving at 30 mph, is for LL's to comply. It isn't that hard to do!

abankerbutnotafatcat

<sebb> wrote: »

Why are horrid landlords allowed to flout the law and not protect deposits (I'm not a business, I was forced to let my house out, I dint know what I was doing etc etc).

The localism act has finally closed a loophole, but despite many, many landlords still not complying, there is yet to be a case because it's costly to sue and most tenants don't want to go through the hassle of a court case.

Harsh, OP did protect the deposit but failed to comply with the mid frame (which was wrong but appears to be a good faith mistake). 10 years ago what she did would not have been wrong. Whereas the tenant has flagrantly reneged on his/her contract and enjoyed the benefit of something without paying for it and worse, this is despite being financially supported by the taxpayer. That has always been wrong.

molly22

I appreciate that I have broken the law regarding not securing the tenants deposit. when I first rented a house out the deposit law wasnt about.
however I'm really surprised at how you all seem to have focuse on that detail alone. never mind the fact that I haven't received any rent from my tenants fort 3 months and now I have to give them their deposit back. so they owe me £1300 but I still have to give them £500!!!!!
I don't suppose they've done anything wrong!!

:mad: