Where do I stand regarding deposit protection?

UnsureTenant

I moved into a rented property several years ago, the deposit was protected properly and I had a copy of the certificate.

Fast forward some years and my landlord decided to cut out the LA so I would pay my rent directly to him. He was seemingly not supposed to do that and we had to be a bit deceptive with the LA.

At this point the LA thought I was leaving, so they refunded my deposit on my LL's request. I then paid this directly to him. For some time (several months) I heard nothing about the deposit. Eventually (after posting another thread on here) I decided to chase the LL about the deposit protection. He got a bit defensive and told me of course it was protected, but I still pushed to get a copy of the certificate.

He shortly produced a certificate dated just a few days prior, i.e. after I chased him and well beyond a month of me paying him the deposit. And the tenancy start date is listed as several years after I initially paid the money to the LA, so as far as I'm concerned not the correct tenancy start date.

I'm shortly going to be leaving and want to know where I stand with this now. Although the deposit is now protected, it spent several months unprotected so I wonder if that has any bearing on things.

Any advice appreciated.

G_M

UnsureTenant wrote: »

He shortly produced a certificate dated just a few days prior, i.e. after I chased him and well beyond a month of me paying him the deposit.
So he protected it late.
And the tenancy start date is listed as several years after I initially paid the money to the LA, so as far as I'm concerned not the correct tenancy start date.
Was a new tenancy created when the LL took over management? Did you sign anything?

I'm shortly going to be leaving and want to know where I stand with this now. Although the deposit is now protected, it spend several months unprotected so I wonder if that has any bearing on things.

Any advice appreciated.

As the deposit was registered late you could sue for the penalty of up to 3 times the deposit.
As the deposit is now protected though, the court will be unlikely to award you the maximum penalty, perhaps the minimum (1 times the deposit) or somewhere in between.

The tenany start date makes little difference.

You could use the potential penalty as a bargaining chip in any dispute over deductions from your deposit.

theartfullodger

Assuming you are in Engerland...

Two things....
a) Any s21 he serves to evict you would be invalid...
b) You can sue him for up to 3x deposit as he protected it late: Even if he returns it in full. Anecdotally it is said normally 1x deposit is awarded via court:

When you leave in your shoes I would write to him, calm & polite, point out the problem & offer to settle for whatever sum you think fair (eg 2x deposit..) & see what happens/what he offers,,,,

Do you need a reference from him??

UnsureTenant

A new tenancy agreement was not created when he took over, we agreed that the existing one was sufficient.

I don't need a reference and I don't want to cause a big fuss over it as he has generally been a good LL (although caused me a bit of stress over the LA deception mentioned).

In my opinion the property is in very good condition so I just want to know where I stand in case he suggests deductions I don't agree with. I've been there quite a long time so I would argue wear and tear for small marks etc. which he might pull up.

Pixie5740

Your contract has always been with the LL, even when the rent was paid to the LA. You've never had a contract with the LA so the existing tenancy agreement was sufficient. Any fallout was for the LL and LA to deal with between themselves.


If your LL tries make unreasonable deductions then dispute it with whichever scheme your deposit is protected with. If it looks like your LL is being stubborn just let him know that you know your deposit should have been protected within 30 days of receiving it.

UnsureTenant

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Your contract has always been with the LL, even when the rent was paid to the LA. You've never had a contract with the LA so the existing tenancy agreement was sufficient. Any fallout was for the LL and LA to deal with between themselves.

Indeed, that's not quite how it went down though