Deposit Protection Penalty for Landlord - advice needed for tenant

TG82

I am currently in shared private rented accommodation.

I have a dispute with my landlord and he's threatening to take money from my deposit. It's a long story which I won't go into as it diverges from my question, but basically I'm planning on taking it to dispute and have kept my evidence. I think I have a good case.

Only, I looked into my tenancy rights and found out that my landlord should have placed my deposit in one of the deposit protection schemes within 30 days.

I've today found out that he did it long after the 30 days. His excuse is he didn't know it was an assured shorthold tenancy, which he now concedes it is. I don't buy that because the contract specifies that it's 'not a shorthold tenancy'. Why would it say that if he did not know about tenancies? Regardless, he broke the law.

My question:

Is it really true that landlords can be made to pay out 3 times as much as the deposit as penalty for not protecting within 30 days? Does anyone have any experience of this having happened?

I'm a little sceptical that this really happens in practice; rather I imagine it's simply a deterrent that isn't enforced.

If it does happen, then I might use it as leverage in negotiations.

G_M

TG82 wrote: »

My question:

Is it really true that landlords can be made to pay out 3 times as much as the deposit as penalty for not protecting within 30 days? Does anyone have any experience of this having happened?
Yes. see below.

I'm a little sceptical that this really happens in practice; rather I imagine it's simply a deterrent that isn't enforced.
No. It happens.

If it does happen, then I might use it as leverage in negotiations.

Deposits (Rules on deposit protection)

Localism Act 2011 (section 184 - updates to deposit scheme rules) Plain English explanation!

TG82

Thanks.

What I meant was does it ever happen. All very well being written somewhere in legislation, but do landlords really ever have to pay those penalties?

Anyone who has heard of it, let me know

G_M

Errrr... what part of my reply did you not understand?

Is it really true that landlords can be made to pay out 3 times as much as the deposit as penalty for not protecting within 30 days? Does anyone have any experience of this having happened?
Yes. see below.

I'm a little sceptical that this really happens in practice; rather I imagine it's simply a deterrent that isn't enforced.
No. It happens.

I cannot list the individual cases, but since the Localism Act was implemented there have been 1000s of cases.

Out of interest, are you a tenant thinking of suing your landlord, or a landlord wondering if you can get away with not bothering to register...?

lighting_up_the_chalice

TG82 wrote: »

Thanks.

What I meant was does it ever happen. All very well being written somewhere in legislation, but do landlords really ever have to pay those penalties?

Anyone who has heard of it, let me know

Ayannuga v Swindells

Suurpere v Nice & Anor

anselld

If your deposit is now protected the LL cannot take money from your deposit, that is the whole point of protection. The LL will have to make a claim via the dispute process or via the courts.

princeofpounds

As people have said, it does happen.

Late protection rather than wilful non-protection might attract a lower penalty in the range.

TG82

anselld wrote: »

If your deposit is now protected the LL cannot take money from your deposit, that is the whole point of protection. The LL will have to make a claim via the dispute process or via the courts.

Unfortunately that's not true. In my last place there was a dispute and we were only paid back our deposit minus what the landlord wanted. We then had to raise the dispute.

TG82

G_M wrote: »

Errrr... what part of my reply did you not understand?


I cannot list the individual cases, but since the Localism Act was implemented there have been 1000s of cases.

Out of interest, are you a tenant thinking of suing your landlord, or a landlord wondering if you can get away with not bothering to register...?

No, I can assure you I'm a tenant.

I was grateful for your initial post but it didn't really tell me anything I didn't know.

I was looking for anecdotal evidence, press articles, research, etc.

TG82

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Ayannuga v Swindells

Suurpere v Nice & Anor

Thanks, I'll look them up.