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

twistoffate2015

in regards section 3 of the landlord and tenancy act...compsny B did send me a letter saying the owners had changed. This was sent by via the letting agent who manages the property. It did not confirm an address for the landlord only that they were still managing for company B. Does this mean they have not complied with section 3?

Nad1611 thank you for your experience did you have to go through the courts initially?

jjlandlord

There have been several tenancies.

• The first one was purely with Company A, so they are obviously the liable party and likely on the hook for 3x deposit.
• The second tenancy was 'purchased' by Company B, so from the statute I'd say that they are the ones liable in relation to that tenancy, and probably for less than 3x deposit since they did protect eventually.
• The third tenancy was purely with Company B, and it seems that deposit was dealt with correctly.

nad1611 wrote: »

Ours settled out of Court.

So you didn't win the case, then.

nad1611

twistoffate2015 wrote: »

in regards section 3 of the landlord and tenancy act...compsny B did send me a letter saying the owners had changed. This was sent by via the letting agent who manages the property. It did not confirm an address for the landlord only that they were still managing for company B. Does this mean they have not complied with section 3?

Nad1611 thank you for your experience did you have to go through the courts initially?

No we wrote tot he Landlord and Letting Agent initially and received no answer we then sent a "letter before action" and as they didn't respond again we started a small claims online. They then settled out of court.

nad1611

jjlandlord wrote: »

There have been several tenancies.
The first one was purely with Company A, so they are obviously the liable party and likely on the hook for 3x deposit.
The second tenancy was 'purchased' by Company B, so from the statute I'd say that they are the ones liable in relation to that tenancy, and probably for less than 3x deposit since they did protect eventually.



So you didn't win the case, then.

Is this a joke, sorry don't get it?? We got three times the amount plus the original deposit and a letter admitting they hadn't protected the deposit.

nad1611

jjlandlord wrote: »

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).

Hey? It's not up the Landlord. He can't pick and choose if he protects the deposit simply by saying he will or won't in the Tenancy Agreement. If it's a Shorthold Tenancy Agreement then he is required by law to protect the deposit.

jjlandlord

nad1611 wrote: »

Is this a joke, sorry don't get it?? We got three times the amount plus the original deposit and a letter admitting they hadn't protected the deposit.

No, it wasn't a joke.
It's just that a court decision sheds more light on the legal situation (obviously) than an out-of-court settlement.

nad1611 wrote: »

Hey? It's not up the Landlord. He can't pick and choose if he protects the deposit simply by saying he will or won't in the Tenancy Agreement. If it's a Shorthold Tenancy Agreement then he is required by law to protect the deposit.

You mis-understood my post.
As you say, deposit protection is a statutory obligation, not a term of the tenancy. Therefore it does not fall under Section 3 quoted above.
Of course the tenancy agreement may in addition make deposit protection a term of the tenancy.

twistoffate2015

Thanks for the advice everyone! Hopefully if it comes to it, it will be settled out of court!

silvercar

nad1611 wrote: »

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.

But OP said they went into administration, so effectively there is no company A in existence.

silvercar

G_M wrote:

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.

So would the second landlord be liable for any harassment by the first landlord? Or failure to renew gas certificate?

twistoffate2015

silvercar wrote: »

But OP said they went into administration, so effectively there is no company A in existence.

No company A did not go into administration...It WAS an administration company as previous owners went bust. Hope that clarifys? I am wondering whether under legal terms the letting agent who is the managing agent for the property is also liable as the act on behalf of the landlord?