PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Tenant owing rent.

2»

Comments

  • Ulfar
    Ulfar Posts: 1,309 Forumite
    Chucksmum wrote: »
    Yes I gave him a S21. Tenancy started 26th August 2012 for 6 months.
    No the deposit didn't go into a deposit protection scheme just it's own saving account.

    Then my old china I am afraid you are stuffed.

    Without the deposit being protected your S21 is invalid, your tenant can sue you for the deposit back plus 1 to 3 times the deposit.

    I suggest you go and read up on the changes that came into place with the localism act.
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Ulfar wrote: »
    .. your tenant can sue you for the deposit back plus 1 to 3 times the deposit.

    I suggest you go and read up on the changes that came into place with the localism act.
    Localism Act 2011 (section 184 - updates to deposit scheme rules) Plain English explanation!

    (Bit pedantic, but tenant would sue for 3 times the deposit, and judge could award "up to" 3 times, which might mean half the deposit - so not just 1 -3 times. Makes no odds at this stage though)
  • tbs624
    tbs624 Posts: 10,816 Forumite
    OP - see this link for guidance. Saves us all having to type it out.

    Seems to have been several posts recently from LLs failing to meet their own legal obligations and yet flagging up their Ts shortcomings.

    Deposit regs came into force 6 whole years ago and were, as Ulfar mentions, updated last year via the Localism Act. No excuse for LLs - deposit registration is very simple and the need for compliance has been widely advertised.
  • Ulfar
    Ulfar Posts: 1,309 Forumite
    G_M wrote: »
    Localism Act 2011 (section 184 - updates to deposit scheme rules) Plain English explanation!

    (Bit pedantic, but tenant would sue for 3 times the deposit, and judge could award "up to" 3 times, which might mean half the deposit - so not just 1 -3 times. Makes no odds at this stage though)

    From your link, Section 9 part B, specifies penalty cannot be less than deposit amount. Your right the law is pedantic.
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Ulfar wrote: »
    From your link, Section 9 part B, specifies penalty cannot be less than deposit amount. Your right the law is pedantic.
    Hoisted once more by my own.....!

    :T
  • thesaint
    thesaint Posts: 4,324 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    edited 7 May 2013 at 3:22PM
    Since you have not protected the deposit, your Sec 21 is invalid.

    What you should do is tell the tenant that you are wiling to wait for him to sort his affairs out with his wages, but in the meantime, does he want to use his deposit to bring his arrears down.

    If he does, then you write a letter stating that this is what you are doing, and get him to sign it. It is not necessary to return the deposit to him.

    Once that is done, time it so that you serve a Sec 21 before the next tenancy period starts.
    Well life is harsh, hug me don't reject me.
  • mart.vader
    mart.vader Posts: 714 Forumite
    A quick question.

    One of the deposit schemes confirmed to me that the requirement to protect deposit only applies to AST's. Is this correct?
  • Yorkie1
    Yorkie1 Posts: 12,158 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    mart.vader wrote: »
    A quick question.

    One of the deposit schemes confirmed to me that the requirement to protect deposit only applies to AST's. Is this correct?

    What other did you have in mind?
  • mart.vader
    mart.vader Posts: 714 Forumite
    Yorkie1 wrote: »
    What other did you have in mind?

    For example, a lodger agreement, an excluded occupier agreement or a resident landlord agreement. They're not AST's.
  • tbs624
    tbs624 Posts: 10,816 Forumite
    mart.vader wrote: »
    A quick question.

    One of the deposit schemes confirmed to me that the requirement to protect deposit only applies to AST's. Is this correct?

    Yes, it is correct. AST deposits only.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.2K Life & Family
  • 258.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture