LL deposit scheme

Thrugelmir

molly22 wrote: »

I don't suppose they've done anything wrong!!

:mad:

You are running a business. Bad debts are a factor in any business. So who you deal with as a customer requires the appropriate level of scrutiny and due diligence.
So that the risk of losses are minimised. Never eradicated as even the best tenant can suffer financial misfortune.

Too often letting the property is the primary aim. Rather than waiting for the right tenant to come along.

marliepanda

Having a bad tenant is a risk of a business.

By not protecting the deposit you have taken away one of your routes to dealing with this bad tenant. If you had complied with law all of the legal avenues to remove the tenant would be open to you immediately.

You are using the fact the tenant hasn't paid rent as an 'excuse' or a balance to the fact you didn't protect the deposit. The deposit should have been protected immediately. At that point you wouldn't have known if the tenant was going to pay or not.

You may have a 'professional' in the know tenant who knows they haven't received the prescribed info so knows you don't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, you didn't do what you were supposed to do BEFORE the tenant started failing his end of the bargain.

k0sh

You don't mention a check in/ check out or inventory?
I think it would be easier for you next time to engage a letting agent on a "Let only" basis. They will handle the deposit for you at a small fee.

In my experience (as a letting/estate agent) DSS tenants have been a pain. If they get into payment difficulties, the council will advise them to stay put. Even if you issue sxn 21, 8 or anything else. The end game could be bailiffs for you.

FBaby

G_M wrote: »

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 totally understand the reason and support 100% deposit being securely held by a third party. That makes complete sense. The one thing I don't get is why, as in the case of the OP, there is law that stipulates it needs to be put in within 1 month. As long as it is protected, it is protected, so why this 1 month issue? It would make more sense that it should be protected by the time the tenants or landlords give notice.

Rosemary7391

FBaby wrote: »

I totally understand the reason and support 100% deposit being securely held by a third party. That makes complete sense. The one thing I don't get is why, as in the case of the OP, there is law that stipulates it needs to be put in within 1 month. As long as it is protected, it is protected, so why this 1 month issue? It would make more sense that it should be protected by the time the tenants or landlords give notice.

The LL can't control when the tenants give notice, so that wouldn't work. If there is a one month time limit for the deposit to be protected, I guess that leaves 5 months out of a 6 month tenancy for all the faffing around.. writing letters, waiting for replies, applying to courts and waiting for a court date.. could take much longer than the one month notice period if it doesn't get done until a tenant gives notice! And if the LL goes AWOL during the tenancy, or bankrupt etc the deposit needs to be protected before then. 1 month after the start of the tenancy gives the LL plenty of time to do it after all.

OP - they have done wrong, of course, but so have you. Your failing means that you don't have a deposit/S21 route, theirs means they can get evicted for not paying the rent/chased for the debt. Different wrongs, different outcomes. If you stick around here for a bit you'll find plenty of the information you need to get it all right next time

molly22

oh dont worry, im going to scour this site every day!!

i didnt realise there so many bad people out there, Landlords and Tenants.
ive probably been very lucky up to now!
and i havent just taken anyone, i have been picky and refused dodgy prospective tenants. obviously got it wrong this time.

thanks
xx

Werdnal

molly22 wrote: »

i didnt realise there so many bad people out there, Landlords and Tenants.

I am sure there aren't! If you take the whole picture, of the 1,000s of people who rent and the 1,000s of landlords who rent to them, there majority are good, reliable, law abiding and genuine people. Its just the biased perspective you get from forums like this when every other thread is about someone being ripped off or ripping off someone else. Mud sticks, the bad stories make the headlines and the good ones go on unnoticed. I have let property for 13 years, and in that time had 4 tenants - 3 were excellent, 1 was a total loser, so the ratio of 12 years 6 months of hassle free letting, versus a 6 month FT for the bad one, doesn't work out too badly in my estimation.

When you say you have been picky about tenants before, what methods do you use? Do you credit check and vet them, get references etc? If you take on another benenfit tenant once this one is out ang gone, try to get a guarantor and throrough credit check them too, to give you another option to chase for rent and damages if the worst happens. Make sure the guarantor agreement is water-tight and properly set up as a deed, otherwise it could be worthless.

newsgroup_monkey

I'll go along with that.

My Mum has a pile of properties she rents out - in all honesty, she lets the LA manage them all.

She has barely had a problem in 20 years - all of it is minor.

molly22

thanks for that, some positivity.

my family just tell me to sell the property which doesnt help.

my sister in law rents a property and she is brilliant and the property spotless, so i just need to find somebody like her!

i do ask for references and use my instinct.
i will find a checklist and do it properly next time.
thanks for your advice.

xx

thesaint

G_M wrote: »

You cannot serve a valid S21 until you return the deposit in full to the tenant.

This is incorrect.
The landlord and tenant can agree to allocate the deposit towards rent.

G_M wrote: »

You used to be able to register it late, but not since last April (2012) (Localism Act)

This is also incorrect. A landlord can still register a deposit late. He cannot register it late with the intention of serving a Sec 21 of course.

G_M wrote: »

You have breached the law and now must pay the penalty!

This is also incorrect. Only a court can tell the landlord pay a penalty.
The likelihood of a tenant going to court and getting a court to do so are slim.