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

pyueck

twistoffate2015 wrote: »

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

So they took an inventory of the place two years into living there?

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

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?

Why would relying on the existing inventory make them liable for deposit non-protection? These are not related either.

Jhoney_2

Interesting one and I have no idea, but if A hands over business to company B in 2014, and they are selling with Agents/Tenants in situ, one presumes they assume benefits and liabilities.

The fact is that upon take over B puts a deposit in your name into one of the approved schemes within the 30 day deadline.

Due to you not relinquishing the tenancy prior to April 2014, I think you suffered no loss and will not succeed in a claim by either company A or B. Just my opinion.

If you are lucky, company B may accept the claim liability and in turn sue company A as I believe the fact that you suffered no loss is no obstacle to the 30 day claim.

However, company B has to prove the damage and proportional deductions above wear and tear for the 2.5 year occupancy - which they presumably cannot, so arguing your case on these points may be a better plan than leverage or counter nonsense.

twistoffate2015

Yes it is s complicated one isnt it! I just checked the other tenancy deposit schemes ans cannot find one for the period between october 2012 and april 2014....

Like i said the matter of the damage is in hand

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

Why would relying on the existing inventory make them liable for deposit non-protection. These are not related either.

JJ you are being a bit unfair.

With regard to '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.'

If they didn't do an inventory when they took ownership how could they prove the change in the condition of the property since the tenancy started. OK granted, as you say yes maybe they could argue that they could rely on the initial inventory from company A. However as I think we are all agreed the case of who the OP should claim the money for Company A not protecting the deposit is unclear, i.e. nobody on here is 100% sure.

If I was a judge, if company B said I don't want to be liable for company A not protecting the deposit but I do want to use their inventory to prove the change of condition, I would say no, because any change in the condition while in the hands of company A (and you couldn't prove whether the change happened while the tenant had company A or B as a landlord) was while the deposit was not protected. The law is that if the deposit is not protected the judge can order the full return of the deposit even if there should be deductions.

Hence why they are related.

jjlandlord

pyueck wrote: »

However as I think we are all agreed the case of who the OP should claim the money for Company A not protecting the deposit is unclear, i.e. nobody on here is 100% sure.

It is clear.

pyueck wrote: »

If I was a judge, if company B said I don't want to be liable for company A not protecting the deposit but I do want to use their inventory to prove the change of condition, I would say no, because any change in the condition while in the hands of company A (and you couldn't prove whether the change happened while the tenant had company A or B as a landlord) was while the deposit was not protected.

That's your opinion. However you are not a judge and your opinion has no basis in law.

pyueck

jjlandlord wrote: »

It is clear.



That's your opinion. However you are not a judge and your opinion has no basis in law.

It isn't clear.

Yes my opinion based on my understanding of the law, maybe a judge would disagree but I think totally wrong to say irrelevant.

You could try not being so rude?

G_M

To recap:

* .... my tenancy with company A started from around 12/10/12.
* it was for a fixed term of 6 months
* around 11/4/13 the tenancy became periodic
* around 28/04/14 the landlord changed (but the tenancy did not - the periodic tenancy continued)
* around 28/04/14 the deposit was registered in the new landlords name on the TDS scheme,..
* in october 2014 a new tenancy was signed with company B after a rent increase. (for x months/years)

If/when the tenancy ends and tenant moves out, the condition of the property should be compared with its condition on 12/10/12. Therefore the original inventory is what matters.

The condition of the property in April 14 is irrelevant.

As for the damage, in a dispute it would be up to the arbitrators or a court to decide whether it was 'damage' or 'wear and tear'.

I still believe the new LL is liable for the failure of the original LL to protect the deposit. On taking over the ptoperty, he took over the existing tenancy. All of it. Had the tenant been in rent arrears at that time (presumably he wasn't!) the new LL could chase the tenant for the arrears. Similarly, the tenant can chase the new LL for any legal failings connected with the tenancy.

As for the damage, in a dispute it would be up to the arbitrators or a court to decide whether it was 'damage' or 'wear and tear'.

As an aside, did the new landlord comply with section 3 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

3 Duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord’s interest.

(1)If the interest of the landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, the new landlord shall give notice in writing of the assignment, and of his name and address, to the tenant not later than the next day on which rent is payable under the tenancy or, if that is within two months of the assignment, the end of that period of two months.

(2).........


(3)A person who is the new landlord under a tenancy falling within subsection (1) and who fails, without reasonable excuse to give the notice required by that subsection, commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

[F1(3A)The person who was the landlord under the tenancy immediately before the assignment (“the old landlord”) shall be liable to the tenant in respect of any breach of any covenant, condition or agreement under the tenancy occurring before the end of the relevant period in like manner as if the interest assigned were still vested in him; and where the new landlord is also liable to the tenant in respect of any such breach occurring within that period, he and the old landlord shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of it.

(3B)In subsection (3A) “the relevant period” means the period beginning with the date of the assignment and ending with the date when—

(a)notice in writing of the assignment, and of the new landlord’s name and address, is given to the tenant by the new landlord (whether in accordance with subsection (1) or not), or

(b)notice in writing of the assignment, and of the new landlord’s name and last-known address, is given to the tenant by the old landlord,

whichever happens first.]

If not, the old LL definately remains liable (S3a)

nad1611

Having just won one of these case literally a couple of weeks ago I can say that the Landlord A would be liable. As above, it is he who needed to give you the prescribed information within 30 days and he didn't. You haven't been able to find that the deposit was protected during that period either.
Contact Company A, tell them what you believe and any evidence you have of this case. The likelihood is they may contest it to begin with but at the end of the day they should have protected the Deposit and it appears they didn't. They would be liable to pay you three times the deposit plus the return of the original deposit.

Ours settled out of Court.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

If not, the old LL definately remains liable (S3a)

Deposit protection is not a breach of the tenancy (unless tenancy states that landlord will protect, but then compensation for breach would only be the incurred loss, i.e. probably 0).