Do people go after Deposit Protection compensation when they're on good terms?

itchyfeet123

So far, my landlord has been good. When I leave (not for a while yet) I intend to leave my flat in a good condition. I don't anticipate any problems getting my deposit back.

I've just discovered that my landlord didn't really comply with the deposit protection requirements. The deposit was protected about a week late, the certificate has the wrong date for when the deposit was received (presumably so the date of protection would appear to be within the window) and the version of the certificate I received was unsigned.

It's my understanding that because of the deposit not getting protected until after 30 days, when my tenancy ends I am entitled to apply for compensation of 1-3 times the deposit. My question is, do people do this if the landlord isn't otherwise screwing them over?

agrinnall

Only people who don't want a decent reference from their LL.

Bossypants

I mean if you can justify getting money off a decent person for failing to clear a bureaucratic hurdle in the allotted time, which has not impacted you in any way whatsoever, go for it, I guess...

Boatdweller

It's not really a bureaucratic hurdle. If you're a landlord it's your responsibility, it doesn't take long and it's not difficult to do.

Bossypants

Boatdweller wrote: »

It's not really a bureaucratic hurdle. If you're a landlord it's your responsibility, it doesn't take long and it's not difficult to do.

Agreed, and they have done it, just *slightly* outside the timeframe. Now if by the end of the tenancy there have been other issues, then I think it's legit to go for whatever proportionate legal redress you can get, but where there have been none, I think it would be pretty low, frankly, even if they are legally entitled.

Just my opinion of course.

pmlindyloo

itchyfeet123 wrote: »

So far, my landlord has been good. When I leave (not for a while yet) I intend to leave my flat in a good condition. I don't anticipate any problems getting my deposit back.

I've just discovered that my landlord didn't really comply with the deposit protection requirements. The deposit was protected about a week late, the certificate has the wrong date for when the deposit was received (presumably so the date of protection would appear to be within the window) and the version of the certificate I received was unsigned.

It's my understanding that because of the deposit not getting protected until after 30 days, when my tenancy ends I am entitled to apply for compensation of 1-3 times the deposit. My question is, do people do this if the landlord isn't otherwise screwing them over?

Since you have some time to go before you leave I would like to suggest that you hold this in abeyance until you actually leave. Things do change during tenancies and this would be a useful 'tool' if the letting agent/landlord doesn't return your deposit promptly after you leave and/or makes deductions with which you disagree. No sense in rocking the boat at the moment.

ViolaLass

Boatdweller wrote: »

It's not really a bureaucratic hurdle. If you're a landlord it's your responsibility.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

martindow

If your LL gives back the deposit to your satisfaction I would let it go. If however he proposes deductions that you think unreasonable then it is a handy thing to negotiate with. The threat of taking action is likely to get your deposit back in full.

At this stage your new LL would have received a reference (assuming you need one) and all would be well.

C.C.L.

You're living in his property quite happily it would seem, and yet you're already thinking of how to claim 3 times the deposit?
OK so he was a week late protecting it but how has this affected you?
I certainly wouldn't even think about it let alone do it.

itchyfeet123

C.C.L. wrote: »

You're living in his property quite happily it would seem, and yet you're already thinking of how to claim 3 times the deposit?

No, I'm asking if people do this.

As a previous poster said, going after this seems pretty low if there is no other dispute. But seeing as I'm not from here I wanted to calibrate my instincts against people with more experience.

Bossypants

itchyfeet123 wrote: »

No, I'm asking if people do this.

As a previous poster said, going after this seems pretty low if there is no other dispute. But seeing as I'm not from here I wanted to calibrate my instincts against people with more experience.

I think the thing to bear in mind is that the law exists not to punish landlords for a small oversight, but to give tenants, who are often in the financially weaker position vis a vis a landlord, a watertight claim if the landlord had also been dodgy in other, harder to prove areas. It gives them an option of redress and penalises the landlord without the tenant having to commit to a protracted and costly court battle, which they might not win even if they are right. It's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, to use a dramatic example.

Obviously people can abuse it and most landlords and pretty scrupulous about getting the deposit registered in time, even if they are not so scrupulous in other areas, but that was the idea.