We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

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!

Sue ll for non-protection of deposit?

dancingfairy
dancingfairy Posts: 9,069 Forumite
in House buying, renting & selling
As the title really. I currently rent a room in an HMO. Deposit not registered (well I've not had the info anyway). No address for serving notices either.
I'm not planning on moving out at the moment but when the time comes would you/should I sue for non-protection? Would it make a difference if the deposit was returned in full to your answer? Oh and when you answer I'd be interested to know whether you're a landlord or a tenant.
It's one of the those questions that's in the back of my head at the moment. Should I? Shouldn't I?
df
Making my money go further with MSE :j
How much can I save in 2012 challenge
75/1200 :eek:
«1

Comments

  • ACG
    ACG Posts: 24,725 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    What are you sueing for?
    He/She would get fined, you would not necessarily receive any compensation.
    I am a Mortgage Adviser
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a mortgage adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
  • FR_262
    FR_262 Posts: 155 Forumite
    You could claim up to 3x the deposit for non-protection and for not being given the prescribed information. But are you really nasty enough to do this?

    It will cost you a lot, I believe, to go through the courts and no doubt it will take a long time.

    If you insist on going down this route why not come to a compromise with your landlord.

    I am a landlord.
  • BitterAndTwisted
    BitterAndTwisted Posts: 22,492 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Depends on the outcome you want. In most cases the threat of court would be enough to persuade a landlord to return the deposit. In full, if there's no dual-signed inventory.

    Depending on how much the deposit was it might not go through the fast-track, which would costs about £50, but a higher court and you're taking about a grand or so. Courts can award up to three-times deposit as a penalty for non-protection but could decide to award you a lot less than that as the penalty is discretionary.

    I'd be happiest just getting my deposit back when the time comes.

    I am a tenant.
  • BitterAndTwisted
    BitterAndTwisted Posts: 22,492 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ACG wrote: »
    What are you sueing for?
    He/She would get fined, you would not necessarily receive any compensation.



    Incorrect. Please disregard.


    There's a world of difference between a fine and a penalty. In this case you would be asking the court to award you a penalty.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    ACG wrote: »
    What are you sueing for?
    He/She would get fined, you would not necessarily receive any compensation.

    That's not accurate, this is not a fine but a payment to the tenant.
  • johnbusby
    johnbusby Posts: 181 Forumite
    BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

    I'd be happiest just getting my deposit back when the time comes.

    I am a tenant.

    I think thats fair enough but if everybody took that attitude then where is the incentive for LL to actually play by the rules and act within the law.

    I think when tenants mention seeking the penalty a lot of people label them as greedy but really its going to take for this to become commonplace before it gets through to these rouge LL that fail to follow their obligations
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    johnbusby wrote: »
    I think thats fair enough but if everybody took that attitude then where is the incentive for LL to actually play by the rules and act within the law.

    I think when tenants mention seeking the penalty a lot of people label them as greedy but really its going to take for this to become commonplace before it gets through to these rouge LL that fail to follow their obligations

    The way I look at it is: the ll might not protect it but still be a good ll. The protection is there to insure against the unforeseen, eg if the ll went bankrupt.
  • johnbusby
    johnbusby Posts: 181 Forumite
    Guest101 wrote: »
    The way I look at it is: the ll might not protect it but still be a good ll. The protection is there to insure against the unforeseen, eg if the ll went bankrupt.

    By the LL not protecting the deposit the T is being exposed to risk (such as bankruptcy) that by law they should not be exposed to.

    I would argue that a LL that doesn't carry out there legal obligation to protect the deposit can't be a good one - in the same way that a T that doesn't pay the rent could be described as a good T...
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    johnbusby wrote: »
    By the LL not protecting the deposit the T is being exposed to risk (such as bankruptcy) that by law they should not be exposed to.

    I would argue that a LL that doesn't carry out there legal obligation to protect the deposit can't be a good one - in the same way that a T that doesn't pay the rent could be described as a good T...

    Well I think we agree in principle :)

    And the penalty is there for this reason, just would base law suit on if they have been good in other areas, such as repairs
  • Yorkie1
    Yorkie1 Posts: 12,261 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Guest101 wrote: »
    The way I look at it is: the ll might not protect it but still be a good ll. The protection is there to insure against the unforeseen, eg if the ll went bankrupt.

    It's also there to provide the T with an arbiter about deductions sought by unscrupulous LLs who refused to return deposits without any just excuse and forced the T to go to court to get them back.
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
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K 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