Letting agent asking tenant to sign prescribed information forms retrospectively

someone976

I moved out of the property about a month ago (as I was served with a section 21 and given 2 months notice) and I am in dispute with the landlord regarding amounts she wants to deduct from the deposit.

The deposit is protected by the DPS and as such a dispute has been raised, however I have only recently received a request from the letting agent asking me to sign the prescribed information form with them specifically asking me not to fill in any dates (presumably because they are going to pre-date it). I know from research that this prescribed information should have been provided to me (within 14 days) when the deposit was protected back in 2009.

The letting agent has been pestering me to send these signed documents back to them so the "DPS procedure can be progressed as soon as possible". The agent told me she herself is being hassled by the DPS to get this done.... so I phoned the DPS and spoke to an adviser and explained the situation. They advised me not to sign anything as I have moved out and no longer a tenant. I wasn't prepared to start signing documents without dating anyway so this has just furthered my resolve.

Upon explaining what the DPS had advised me to the letting agent, they then replied that "I bet the DPS didn't tell you that they will charge you AND the landlord £250", which apart from coming across in a un-profressional manner also sounded like a load of rubbish.

I've spoken to Citizen's Advice and they suggest I speak to Shelter which I intend to tomorrow.

So.. my questions are:

What is this £250 the agent speaks of? - I'm guessing she realises that they have been negligent in not getting a prescribed information form to me back in 2009...

I believe the served section 21 was actually "invalid" due to the above. Does this help me in any way or can I use it legally?

Will the DPS be able to proceed without evidence of a signed prescribed information form? - I asked the DPS but they were being evasive with their answers...

Is it worthwhile taking court action for the non-compliance of proper procedures regarding issue of the prescribed information form (as I believe I could receive 3 times the deposit back given the 2009 date)?

If I was to take action I assume it would be against the agent and not the landlord?

FYI my motivation for these questions aren't purely so I can squeeze 3 times my deposit value out of the agent/landlord, I am asking because the landlord is being VERY unreasonable in the "damages" she is claiming and is being abusive toward not only myself but also the letting agent in question. Any leverage I can achieve would be fantastic.

Thanks.

BitterAndTwisted

Not having received the prescribed information rendered your S21 invalid but as you've moved out this cannot be exploited.

But you could use it as leverage to persuade them to reconsider their demand for all or par of your deposit.

Tell the agent you have no intention of signing false documents, and that should they be determined to steal your deposit you will take what remedy is available to you. And it will be the landlord who they are representing very poorly indeed whose @rse would be in a sling. And I'm sure that the landlord wouldn't be particularly pleased to hear of the risks they have exposed them to with their very poor service, not to mention what appears to be their potential dishonesty.

I'm not certain but I believe that this mention of £250 penalty is a load of baloney, and would try to persuade you not to fall for it.

anselld

The prescribed info is not relevant to the deposit.
The £250 is agent BS!
It is the LL you would take to court for failure to provide the prescribed information, but it seems to be an involved process. However certainly worth keeping options open by not signing retrospectively.

G_M

As you rightly say, you should not sign this document, even with a date. But certainly not without.

someone976 wrote: »

I....
So.. my questions are:

What is this £250 the agent speaks of? - I'm guessing she realises that they have been negligent in not getting a prescribed information form to me back in 2009...it is a bluff. Or ignorance.

I believe the served section 21 was actually "invalid" due to the above.Correct Does this help me in any way or can I use it legally? Not now that you have left. You could have ignored it and stayed. However, you have now left voluntarily.

Will the DPS be able to proceed without evidence of a signed prescribed information form?
Yes. Provided the deposit is registered with them, they should proceed
- I asked the DPS but they were being evasive with their answers... I cannot comment

Is it worthwhile taking court action for the non-compliance of proper procedures regarding issue of the prescribed information form (as I believe I could receive 3 times the deposit back given the 2009 date)?Correct. To dothis you would have to sue via the courts, as opposed tothe current action viathe deposit arbitration process. It is slower, more cumbersome, and involves (refundable if you win) court fees. Worthwhile? Your choice.
However, you could suggest that the LL/agent agree to refund your deposit in full, immediately, without dispute, and in return you fefrain from court action.....

If I was to take action I assume it would be against the agent and not the landlord?No. The landlord is liable. You could name the agent as co-defendant (especially useful if the LL is overseas)

FYI my motivation for these questions aren't purely so I can squeeze 3 times my deposit value out of the agent/landlord, I am asking because the landlord is being VERY unreasonable in the "damages" she is claiming and is being abusive toward not only myself but also the letting agent in question. Any leverage I can achieve would be fantastic.

Thanks.

:T :T

Kid_Icarus

From the information you've given us - your landlord or more likely his agent didn't provide you with the prescribed information at the time your tenancy started. The agent is clearly trying to cover his backside by asking you to sign the prescribed information retrospectively. I doubt your landlord even knows this as the agent has likely said to him "Of course we got the tenant to sign the prescribed information - who do you think we are, some kind of mickey mouse operation?!

Do not sign anything, as the other posters have advised. I would tell the agent that you require your deposit returned in full, otherwise you will commence a claim against the landlord for 3x the deposit for his non-compliance. Point out that you are aware that claims can be made retrospectively for upto six years, even though the tenancy is over.

To claim against the landlord (all claims regarding the deposit are always against the landlord, not the agent as it is the landlord whom is responsible for protecting your deposit) for the 3x deposit penalty is not a simple process. It is called a Part 8 claim (Civil Procedure Rules Part 8) and this means that you cannot 'DIY' it like you would a small claims track case. You will need the services of a solicitor and are looking at legal costs of anything from £800 > £1000. If you lost the case, you would be required to pay the landlords costs/legal fees.

So in reality, it is unlikely that many tenants will actually go down this route. However, I would still say to the agent that you ARE going to claim for 3x the deposit as this will definitely put the wind up them. They will hopefully advise the landlord to release the deposit in full to get you off their backs. You get your deposit back, the agent breathes a sigh of relief but probably loses the landlord as a customer. Everyone wins :-)

G_M

I agree withmost of Kid_Icarus above other than the costs.

I admit I have no direct experience of making a claim for the deposit penalty, but it should be possiblefor a reasonably intelligent /literate individual to makea claim without a solicitor. Court fees would still be payable of course.

But frankly, any landlord with half a brain wouldjust returnyour deposit in full.

The issue here, as suggested, is that the LL probobly does not know that his agent messed up,or that he is liable.

So he (the LL) is telling the agent "I want to make deductions from the deposit" & the agent is trying desperately not to admit tothe LL they c*cked up, so is not telling him how legally vulneable he is

tim123456789

Kid_Icarus wrote: »

From the information you've given us - your landlord or more likely his agent didn't provide you with the prescribed information at the time your tenancy started. The agent is clearly trying to cover his backside by asking you to sign the prescribed information retrospectively.

I didn't sign my prescribed information. I just received it

G_M

tim123456789 wrote: »

I didn't sign my prescribed information. I just received it

Correct. It just has tobe providedby the Landlord- there is no requirement to sign.

However in this case, we suspect it was not provided within the correct timeframe, and the agents are attempting to hide this fact by getting a signature against which they can fraudulantly place a date, thus, they hope, escaping any penalty.....

someone976

Thanks for all the replies guys, it is a big help - however it seems to be getting a whole lot messier:

Spoke to the letting agent and asked them what the hell they were on about talking about a £250 fee. It transpires the TDS have said they will charge £500 if the deposit was unprotected for a period of time before they will take the case! Apparently our agent is implying the previous agent who dealt with the house before 2009 didn't protect the deposit and its now turned into a pass the buck scenario.

Bit more info:

Tenancy started Nov 2005 for 6 months (so no protection legislation in place).

May 2006 tenancy became a one month rolling contract (I believe this is referred to as a periodic tenancy and as such is a new agreement at that point) (still no protection legislation in place).

Some point during 2007 agent changed, not sure of exact date yet.

June 2009 agent changed again (to current agent). At this point the deposit was protected with TDS. Looking at my case info on the TDS website it shows the protection start date as June 2009.

So my questions now:

When the letting agency was changed would I have received a new tetnancy agreement? (I will check this later).

I assume the first new tenancy agreement after April 2007 should have included a deposit protection?

If I have never had a new tenancy agreement since May 2006 (as it has been periodic) I assume that there is no requirement for my deposit to be protected - as such my current agent should NOT have registered it with TDS?

What an absolute mess :-(

Thanks.

tim123456789

someone976 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies guys, it is a big help - however it seems to be getting a whole lot messier:

Spoke to the letting agent and asked them what the hell they were on about talking about a £250 fee. It transpires the TDS have said they will charge £500 if the deposit was unprotected for a period of time before they will take the case!

So that's the LA/LL's problem it's got nothing to do with the tenant

Angelicdevil

someone976 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies guys, it is a big help - however it seems to be getting a whole lot messier:

Spoke to the letting agent and asked them what the hell they were on about talking about a £250 fee. It transpires the TDS have said they will charge £500 if the deposit was unprotected for a period of time before they will take the case! Apparently our agent is implying the previous agent who dealt with the house before 2009 didn't protect the deposit and its now turned into a pass the buck scenario.

You will not be liable for any part of this "fee". As a tenant it is not your responsibility to register and protect your deposit. It is the responsibility of the LL or his LA's.

Looks like they're trying to scare you into helping them cover their !!!!!s.