LL keeps arranging viewings without notice

RAS

Yes

Evidently they never sent you the prescribed information either.

Just remind them that you can claim up to 3 times the deposit as a penalty and will do so if there are any more threats.

And that you expect your deposit returned in FULL within 10 days of leaving.

thesaint

sartois wrote: »

So the relevant dates:

On 24 Aug (confirmed on bank transfer) I handed them deposit
They told mydeposits they received it on 2 Sep
They protected it on 3 Oct, which would be outside of the 30 days (just)..

The glaring ommission is the tenancy start date.

sartois

thesaint wrote: »

The glaring ommission is the tenancy start date.

Not according to MyDeposits... they seem to think that the 30 days starts from when the deposit was received. Anyway, tenancy start date was on 1 Sep if that helps?

thesaint

sartois wrote: »

Not according to MyDeposits... they seem to think that the 30 days starts from when the deposit was received. Anyway, tenancy start date was on 1 Sep if that helps?

The countdown then started on the 1st Sep, so yes, they protected it late.

Heliflyguy

sartois wrote: »

Not according to MyDeposits... they seem to think that the 30 days starts from when the deposit was received.

Not that it matters in your position but almost every search I have looked at briefly relating to section 213 housing act 2004 appears to agree.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/section/184/enacted

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/content/section-213-notice

The only one I found that states 30 days from start of tenancy is Shelter?

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news_and_blogs/previous_years/2012/april_2012/deposit_protection_law_changes

Anyway good luck!

mj12_2

My Deposits are quite correct. The tenancy start date has nothing at all to do with it unless there is an issue re Superstrike with a renewal/replacement:

"Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme."

S213(1) Housing Act 2004, S3 and S6 also specify the relevant period commences when the deposit is received.

Think Shelter must have their wires crossed somewhere as the only amendments made to S213 by the Localism Act were to change the 14 day period to 30, the part about "from when it is received" was unchanged.

See S2 here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/section/184/enacted

Annie1960

sartois wrote: »

Not according to MyDeposits... they seem to think that the 30 days starts from when the deposit was received. Anyway, tenancy start date was on 1 Sep if that helps?

Interesting, as there are people on this forum who claim that the 30 days does not begin until the tenancy has started.

It's good to have clarification on this.

jjlandlord

Annie1960 wrote: »

It's good to have clarification on this.

More like interpretation, unless a case law is created (I'm unaware of any, but it might exist).

The statute's wording is essentially (from memory) that "a deposit in relation to an AST must be protected within 30 days of being received".
This is what must be interpreted.

Does this happen when the money is received, full stop?
Or, does it require an agreement to create an AST as well?
Or, does it require that the AST be actually in existence?

Do remember that the deposit schemes seem to have been surprised by the Superstrike v. Rodrigues case, so landlords take legal advice from them at their own risk...

mj12_2

I think the language 'in connection with' would likely be interpreted quite broadly by the courts, i.e. the tenancy need not have commenced, an agreement to create a tenancy is sufficient with the deposit having been paid pursuant thereto.

Additionally it's common practice to my knowledge for deposits to be paid on signing of the contract as opposed to the date the tenant actually takes up occupation and the word 'received' is quite specific... it would be quite a leap for the courts to say the LL could take a deposit from a tenant on signing but somehow forego actually receiving it until some later date when the tenancy actually commenced... would make him like some sort of escrow service, a deposit purgatory

Not aware of any specific case law myself either though but the above is certainly the cautious approach.

jjlandlord

mj12 wrote: »

I think the language 'in connection with' would likely be interpreted quite broadly by the courts, i.e. the tenancy need not have commenced, an agreement to create a tenancy is sufficient with the deposit having been paid pursuant thereto.

I had missed your previous post.

I would agree with you.
It should be noted that the implication is that the 30 day period would not then always start from the moment the money is paid. As usual, what is agreed, and the wording of the agreement is important.

This was the point I was getting at, stressing again that deposit schemes should not be relied on and that the most cautious approach should be taken when in doubt.