Help please :( - Tenancy Deposit system/fines

franklee

This example may help:

Can the landlord rely on his original prescribed information if the deposit has subsequently become unprotected?
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/09/07/can-the-landlord-rely-on-his-original-prescribed-information-if-the-deposit-has-subsequently-become-unprotected/

So I think you're probably OK as it would be a risk for the tenant to spend money bringing the claim with no certain chance of winning. Suggest that if you're reasonable about deposit return they won't feel aggrieved enough to try.

scrabblers

Thanks franklee, reallyhelpful … I did try googling but must have been the day before that was published That does sound like the common sense answer - no prejudice to them, they'll have deposit back and high risk at best, but a lot of interweb had suggested it's penalty so no discretion to court …

I guess on the upside they have moved out so no question of that. Should be clear to court it's just an opportunistic try on …
I will just have to cross my fingers and watch like a hawk next time (that article also had a helpful point about other noncustodial schemes being better …)

sniggings … that's the whole weirdness. It seems that even when they've gone they can sue me for not having protected the deposit (or having protected it and then unprotected for a while) and even if they have left and had the deposit returned - for up to six years according to one poster! The inventory is only relevant as they say they didn't get it and it was sent with the prescribed info ...

His_Dudeness

scrabblers wrote: »

That does sound like the common sense answer - no prejudice to them, they'll have deposit back and high risk at best, but a lot of interweb had suggested it's penalty so no discretion to court …

It does not matter whether that was a prejudice to them or even whether they got their deposit back.
The law imposes a penalty on the landlord when specific requirements were not met.

G_M

scrabblers wrote: »

It seems that even when they've gone they can sue me for not having protected the deposit (or having protected it and then unprotected for a while) and even if they have left and had the deposit returned - for up to six years according to one poster! The inventory is only relevant as they say they didn't get it and it was sent with the prescribed info ...

The ability to sue does not end with the tenancy's end.

But of course, to succeed, a claim must still meet the requirements of the Act(s) (see my earlier post)

The intention is to allow tenants, after they've moved out, to oursue a LL who ignored the Act and did not protect within 30 days..

As for the
"is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme," clause, I've re-highligted. Since ALL the authorised schemes require a deposit to be returned at the end of the tenancy, the fact that a LL has returned it is not grounds to claim a penalty. That would be a nonsense.

Which just leaves the temporary unprotected period, which, as explained requires claiming at the time of the claim.

Whilst there might be a minute ambiguity in the wording, I cannot see a court interpeting the law differntly (though god knows there's been enough poor wording, legal interpretation, re-drafting etc of the deposit laws since 2004)

scrabblers

Thanks again G_M and His Dudeness (and also frank lee) for the info.

Having had a good look at the legislation links you posted, for whatever it's worth I think …
- there's a small risk that 'on application' might mean when the court hears the application rather than at the time of the application
- BUT it is pretty clear, as you say, that if the landlord is not holding the deposit there's no grounds for application

So I'll cross my fingers and return the deposit pronto

I'll let you know if it goes anywhere - otherwise many thanks again!!