deposit not covered by scheme at beginning of tenancy...

G_M

twistoffate2015 wrote: »

* .... my tenancy with company A started from around 12/10/12.
* it was for a fixed term of X months/years
* then xxxxxx happened???

* I received a letter from the letting agency on 28/04/14 stating the landlord had changed and the deposit had been reregistered in the new landlords name company B on the TDS scheme,..

* i did not sign a new tenancy until october 2014 with company B after a rent increase.

???????????????????????????????????????????

twistoffate2015

A number of reported "damages" to various parts of carpets, doorframes marks on thr walls etc which i deem to have been caused through generally living somewhere for almost 2 and a half years. Replacement of carpets is the main issue. I have already sought advice on this matter. I just need to work out who would be liable for the deposit protection failure if it came to it

silvercar

In april 2014 a new company, company B took ownership of the property and sent me prescribed information etc. All gravy On looking at my tenancy deposit summary it says my tenancy started on 12/10/12 but the deposit wasnt registered until 16/04/2014 with TDS... i assume proving it was not held with that scheme at least?

No, it proves that the deposit wasn't registered by that company prior to that date. Changing ownership would mean the deposit needs to be registered to a different holder.

You need to check all 3 deposit schemes to see if any of them held the deposit when company A was your landlord.

I am not at all sure that company B can be held liable for the short comings of company B. After all company B "became responsible (so effectively "received") the deposit when they bought the property. So company B has an obligation to protect the deposit and issue proscribed information within 30 days of receiving it.

silvercar

twistoffate2015 wrote: »

A number of reported "damages" to various parts of carpets, doorframes marks on thr walls etc which i deem to have been caused through generally living somewhere for almost 2 and a half years. Replacement of carpets is the main issue. I have already sought advice on this matter. I just need to work out who would be liable for the deposit protection failure if it came to it

Are company B comparing the condition of the property when they first took ownership or at the start of your tenancy? It would seem to me that the condition of the property when they bought it would be factored into the price they paid, so allowance already made for any deteriotion in the property condition between when you started the tenancy and the purchase date.

jjlandlord

silvercar wrote: »

After all company B "became responsible (so effectively "received") the deposit when they bought the property.

The landlord is liable since he received the deposit. If the person/company who is the landlord changes along the way that does not change that and the landlord does not receive any new deposit in relation to the tenancy.

pyueck

silvercar wrote: »

Are company B comparing the condition of the property when they first took ownership or at the start of your tenancy? It would seem to me that the condition of the property when they bought it would be factored into the price they paid, so allowance already made for any deteriotion in the property condition between when you started the tenancy and the purchase date.

Did they do an inventory when they took ownership and protected the deposit? If not any claim they have will fail if you dispute it.

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

Did they do an inventory when they took ownership and protected the deposit? If not any claim they have will fail if you dispute it.

Why? These are not related.

twistoffate2015

G_M wrote: »

???????????????????????????????????????????

My initial tenancy from october 2012was a fixed term for 6 months and then i would assume become a general month to month tenancy after. This would mean it would have ran until april 2013 and then became the rolling tenancy.

twistoffate2015

Yes they took an inventory. Like i said i have that matter in hand it is the seperate issue of failure to protect the deposit i am interestex in

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

Why? These are not related.

Why not? If they don't have evidence of the condition of the property when the tenancy started how can they make a valid deduction from the deposit. If they go on to claim, no we can rely on the inventory from the previous landlord, then fine, but this would also then surely make them liable for the previous landlord failing to protect the deposit?