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

ViolaLass

FBaby wrote: »

You can do what you want since it is in your legal right to do. It won't impact on you personally and you will get a bit of extra money to go on a nice holiday.

The person who will pay will be the next tenant because clearly, the landlord is going to be quite angry about it and therefore will be much less likely to show any flexibility in the future. The new tenant can expect an increase in rent after they have been there 6 months, no breaking clause, no flexibility over decoration, and given an S21 when they go ahead and decorate anyway.

Not necessarily, the LL might just be more careful to jump through the hoops in exactly the right way next time. I'm not saying that the OP should do anything but if they do, the LL has left themselves open to it.

Ricardo1980

agrinnall wrote: »

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

I think you have 6 years to get a compensation for failing protecting your deposit.
References are only (at least in my case) for the last one or two years.

In other words, you can wait a couple of years and then start the claim.

Ricardo1980

FBaby wrote: »

The person who will pay will be the next tenant because clearly, the landlord is going to be quite angry about it and therefore will be much less likely to show any flexibility in the future. The new tenant can expect an increase in rent after they have been there 6 months, no breaking clause, no flexibility over decoration, and given an S21 when they go ahead and decorate anyway.

Supply and demand.
If you increment too much the price, you don't sell it.

BTW, is there any mechanism to have references about landlords? (apart from checking judgments http://www.trustonline.org.uk/understand-judgments-fines/searching-the-registers/the-registers-for-judgments-and-fines)

FBaby

ViolaLass wrote: »

Not necessarily, the LL might just be more careful to jump through the hoops in exactly the right way next time. I'm not saying that the OP should do anything but if they do, the LL has left themselves open to it.

Yes they did, but that's the point, sometimes you make errors and it doesn't mean you should pay heavily for them when no harms has been done. For all we know, it's not the landlord who failed, but the rental agent he paid to do the job properly on his behalf.

The point is that any tenant who has no qualms in making money out of the misfortune of someone else when they have occurred no loss are only in it out of greed. Yes, it is likely that the LL will become more aware of the fine details of the law and stick to it after that. This could also mean having no qualms in asking for a 10% increase in rent to his next tenant after 6 months because after all, the law says that he can.

I wonder how OP would feel if that's what his new LL did to him and he found himself with no choice but to pay up or to move again, having to look for somewhere else and pay again all the agency fees.

FBaby

Supply and demand.
If you increment too much the price, you don't sell it.

Indeed, but as above, not much fun for the tenant to have to start the whole process of looking for somewhere else after 6 months only and having to pay fees again. There have certainly been a number of tenants complaining about this on this forum. I find any LL acting in this manner despicable, very similarly to OP's intentions.

itchyfeet123

G_M wrote: »

You make it sound as if 'people' all do the same thing. Obviously some 'people' will, and some won't.

It will depend on their personalities; the precise circumstances when the time comes; their individual moral/religeous/philosophical/political viewpoints; the mood they're in on the day they make the decision; the financial pressures they might be under; what their horoscope tells them that month; and other variables

OK, not "people" generically; people reading this thread.

FBaby wrote: »

I find any LL acting in this manner despicable, very similarly to OP's intentions.

What exactly are my intentions? I noted that a situation could potentially be advantageous and asked if people typically take advantage of such situations.

Ricardo1980

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, but as above, not much fun for the tenant to have to start the whole process of looking for somewhere else after 6 months only and having to pay fees again. There have certainly been a number of tenants complaining about this on this forum. I find any LL acting in this manner despicable, very similarly to OP's intentions.

That is also a problem for the landlord, because maybe the flat is going to be empty a few weeks or even months if your price is higher than the average in the area, and in that time you don't receive a rent.

booksurr

I sincerely hope that you are not influenced by the opinions expressed on forums when it comes to such moral questions. You are a human being, not a cow or a sheep following the herd because you are incapable of your own stance on matters.

To sue or not to sue is your own decision, it should not be one based on the "average" behaviour of others as divined in forums or from listening to gossip.

FBaby

What exactly are my intentions? I noted that a situation could potentially be advantageous and asked if people typically take advantage of such situations.

Sorry, should have written consideration rather than intention, but makes no difference, it is still as you wrote looking into taking advantage of a situation out of greed.

That is also a problem for the landlord, because maybe the flat is going to be empty a few weeks or even months if your price is higher than the average in the area, and in that time you don't receive a rent.

As said before, supply and demand, they might already have 5 people lined up prepared to pay the increase rent. This was an example used as illustration that when people abuse their legal power, on whichever side of the fence you sit in, it will end up impacting other people in unpleasant way. The law is there to protect people against harm, not as a convenience for a quick buck.

itchyfeet123

booksurr wrote: »

I sincerely hope that you are not influenced by the opinions expressed on forums when it comes to such moral questions. You are a human being, not a cow or a sheep following the herd because you are incapable of your own stance on matters.

To sue or not to sue is your own decision, it should not be one based on the "average" behaviour of others as divined in forums or from listening to gossip.

To a degree you're right. But context often matters. As an example, in this country I would never hand someone more than the official amount of money charged for a service because it's bribery and bribery would be bad. In other parts of the world I absolutely will because these little "tips" are expected and I'd never get the signature/visa stamp/whatever otherwise.