Help please :( - Tenancy Deposit system/fines

agrinnall

scrabblers wrote: »

Thanks marliepanda. I don't understand what landlords could gain by doing this … the deposit being unprotected doesn't advantage me at all… ??

Of course it does, £500 in a deposit scheme is an entirely different issue to £500 in your bank account. Surely you can see this?

scrabblers

agrinnall wrote: »

Of course it does, £500 in a deposit scheme is an entirely different issue to £500 in your bank account. Surely you can see this?

Yes - sorry if unclear. It's not a custodial scheme, so it has been in my account throughout (protected and unprotected) which is why I didn't know that it had been unprotected.

G_M

Seems to me that
1) you protected it on time
2) you served the PI on time. There is no requirement for tenants to 'return the certificate'.

Inventory is irrelevant so far as the penalty is concerned. In terms of disputing damage, dirt, loss etc, lack of a signed inventory will weaken you position in a dispute

last year I protected the deposit and posted the certificate and info with the inventory to the new tenants. I have a copy of that letter but not proof of posting.
Si his becomes a question of proof - who the court will believe - you or tenants (assuming they deny receiving it). No one can predict this as there are too many unknowns
- unfortunately I then had a very rough few months of pressure and ill health and was away a lot. My bad, I a) didn't clock that the certificate and inventory hadn't been returned,
no required by the rules, just helpful as proof
.......
- in August I tried to log on to scheme's site and protect this (incoming) year's deposit. They had cancelled my membership. I called them and explained my circs and they said I could rejoin which I did,

I assume the cancellation is the reason you are concerned about non-compliance. Given that you renewed your membership (not just for the new deposit but for the original one I trust....???), AND originally protected it on time, I imagine a ciurt would be sympathetic. At worst impose the minimum penalty (1 x deposit), at best, rule you protected in time so complied.

scrabblers

Thanks G_M, much appreciated. Yes, the fact that (unbeknown to me) it was unprotected through cancellation for part of the tenancy is what the tenants have used to say they can go to court and get the deposit back (which I imagine is irrelevant if I return it anyway?) plus penalty …
The scheme definitely records the original protection, and I have a copy of the letter, with enclosures (certificate and inventory).
1 x deposit would still be shocking, but not nearly as bad as 4 x so here's hoping! …

Should I just go ahead and give back the deposit now (triggering unprotection) …?

His_Dudeness

marliepanda wrote: »

Yes. Otherwise what would be the point in the law? Landlords could protect for a month, remove 'by accident' then re protect later on.

The issue is how the law is drafted. It is far from clear than this scenario would attract a penalty.

agrinnall wrote: »

Of course it does, £500 in a deposit scheme is an entirely different issue to £500 in your bank account. Surely you can see this?

Well, there are schemes by guarantee where the money stays on the landlord's bank account. In fact I think that the only way that this scenario can occur.

G_M

His_Dudeness wrote: »

The issue is how the law is drafted. It is far from clear than this scenario would attract a penalty.

The Housing Act (amended by the Localism Act) says:

213Requirements relating to tenancy deposits

(1).....
(2)....
(3)Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which it is received.

and similarly re the Prescribed Information.
However additionally:

214Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits

(1)Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—
(a).....or
(b).....

(2)Subsections (3) and (4) apply ifon such an application the court—
(a)is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b)is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.

(3)The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a)order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b)order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

So not only must it be initially protected, but it must also be protected at the time a tenant makes an application to the court..

In this case, as I understand it:

a) the deposit was initially protected, in time. So no penalty possible
b) the deposit then became temporaily un-protected. So a penalty could have been imposed during this period if the tenant had gone to court
c) the penalty is now protected, so no penalty can now be imposed

I don't believe the Localism Act or Deregulation Act affect this.

Housing Act 2004 (Section 212: tenancy deposit schemes)

Localism Act 2011 (Section 184: tenancy deposit schemes)

Deregulation Act 2015 Ss 30-32 (amendments to Housing Act & Localism Act re S21 service, & penalties)

His_Dudeness

G_M wrote: »

In this case, as I understand it:

a) the deposit was initially protected, in time. So no penalty possible
b) the deposit then became temporaily un-protected. So a penalty could have been imposed during this period if the tenant had gone to court
c) the penalty is now protected, so no penalty can now be imposed

Exactly my point.

scrabblers

Thanks both that's really helpful.
- so as they didn't go to court in the time when it was unprotected, now that it is reprotected they can't ...
- but if I return the deposit to them (and they accept / we settle any deductions) it then gets unprotected again, which seems to suggest that gives them an avenue to sue again? But surely I should be returning depost now ...
Argh, sorry if I'm imssing something obvious ...??

scrabblers

and yes His Dudeness you are right - only occurred because using a non custodial scheme ie in my account throughout.

sniggings

scrabblers wrote: »

Thanks both that's really helpful.
- so as they didn't go to court in the time when it was unprotected, now that it is reprotected they can't ...
- but if I return the deposit to them (and they accept / we settle any deductions) it then gets unprotected again, which seems to suggest that gives them an avenue to sue again? But surely I should be returning depost now ...
Argh, sorry if I'm imssing something obvious ...??

What???

it then gets unprotected again, which seems to suggest that gives them an avenue to sue again?

if they move out how can they sue for an unprotected deposit if they don't live there!

Give them the deposit back, if you do not have a signed copy of the inventory on move in day, give all the deposit back, unless they agree to deductions.

Sending them a copy has nothing to do with whether YOU have a signed copy of the inventory.