LL deposit scheme

G_M

thesaint wrote: »

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



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.




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.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

molly22

G_M wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

not very helpful G_M

molly22

update to my other thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4547599

G_M

molly22 wrote: »

not very helpful G_M

About as helpful as the Saint's rather obvious and nit-picking contribution that was more appropriate to a student debating society than a forum dedicated to providing practical advice to people like yourself.

His comments were akin to :

OP enquiry: "I am from France. In the UK, how fast can I drive?"

Me: "As a driver in the UK you can't go faster than 70 mph."

The Saint: "This is incorrect. You can drive at any speed you like but may be fined or otherwise punished if caught by the police, or a speed camera or other enforcement method."

thesaint

molly22 wrote: »

not very helpful G_M

It's easier than admitting that you're wrong.

MoHunter

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!

I might misunderstand but...how come the tenant has only paid £50 since start of the tenancy, did they not pay the first month's rent in advance in any case? All the properties I have ever rented in the UK (as a tenant) asked for the first month's rent even before the moving-in date.

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??

While I know people can get unlucky with their tenants, I have been on the other side of a horrible dispute regarding a tenancy deposit as a tenant myself. Having left the property in pristine condition (cleaner than when I moved in) my ex-LL sent me a list of all the things she was going to deduct from the deposit, even after saying all was fine initially. The list was simply ludicrous, everyone I talked to about it agreed it was completely out of proportion and unreasonable - she basically wanted to keep 70-80% of my just under £1k deposit for things that clearly fell under fair wear and tear, as well as over-exaggerating cost of small items such as a replacement light bulb, wanting me to charge for her having to re-hang her curtains, etc. I think she had already spent the deposit and did not want to have to pay out of her own pocket!

At the time I felt extremely powerless as a tenant because she had the money, and only after investigating did I find out about the LL's legal responsibility to protect the deposit and the punishment if they failed to do so. As I could not remember ever having received a letter about a DPS, I then investigated and it turned out my LL had failed to protect the deposit (despite our contract stating otherwise), and on the threat of taking legal action I eventually managed to get 95% of my deposit back well over 2 months after I moved out.

I never did take her to court even though I could have tried to sue her for 3x the deposit, it wasn't worth the hassle, but had it not been for this law I wouldn't have been able to get my money back which was legally mine.

So, I respectfully have to disagree with your statement above - there may be some horrible tenants but there are equally terrible , vicious and greedy LLs out there who would shamelessly see the deposit as theirs and refuse to pay back to the tenant what they should.

In case of disputes, the tenant only stands a chance of fair treatment through deposit protection schemes.

My ex-LL, by the way, was a first time LL like yourself as well at the time. I cannot fathom why people do not familiarise themselves with all legal requirements before taking on such a venture - there is a lot of information out there. If I was to start a business of any kind (which this is) I would do my homework.

You MIGHT on the other hand be "lucky", in that your tenant might not be familiar with the law regarding deposit protection (I wasn't at the time). And many would probably not want the hassle of going to court. Also, if the tenant failed to pay rent it is highly unlikely they would be successful in claiming 3x the deposit back, as they equally broke the tenancy agreement.

tim123456789

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.

because without a time limit the courts rulled that the LL could register retrosepctively after the tenancy has ended.

So we got into the absurd situation where it was only necessary for LLs to register a deposit if T started to prosecute them for not doing so.

So a strict time limit was introduced.

For a properly run business, one month is a perfectly adequate timetable IMHO

tim