Tenancy deposit schemes appear to be a waste of time

AnotherJoe

Crashy_Time wrote: »

https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/2017/04/thousands-of-landlords-agents-are-now-in-danger-of-rent-repayment-orders-being-sought-by-their-tenants/

Since "thousands are in danger of rent repayment" for breaching one or more of the following, that seems to be a good thing ;

• Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice under section 30 of the Housing Act 2004;
• Failure to comply with a Prohibition Order under section 32 of the Housing Act 2004;
• Breach of a banning order made under section 21 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016;
• Using violence to secure entry to a property under section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and
• Illegal eviction or harassment of the occupiers of a property under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977

theartfullodger

Crashy_Time wrote: »

https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/2017/04/thousands-of-landlords-agents-are-now-in-danger-of-rent-repayment-orders-being-sought-by-their-tenants/

And if the landlord simply complies with the law, no problem.

It's a bit like people whining & whinging about being fined for speeding: It's the law, if you don't want to be done for it, comply!

FBaby

If you are making a lot of assumptions along the line, so can't really use them to reach the conclusion you seem to infer.

Saying that, you might have a point. I know of one case that went to the ADR that went against the LL. As we know, the final decision can't be challenged, however, they filed a complaint on the basis that he adjudicator had not followed due diligence and pointed specific example when they had failed to adhere to their own principles. The complaint was upheld, they agreed with LL and case was submitted to another adjudicator not aware of the complaint. They apologised for the poor service provided.

New case went totally the other way and almost all the deposit went to the LL, although they never knew if they recovered it from the tenant as they funds had already been transferred. Expect they didn't.

It would seem that a large majority of the mistakes were due to the case made by the LL not being read thoroughly, whilst other errors were due to 'incorrect' decision making, as in the other adjudicator came up with a very different decision, and I guess that's where inevitably, there will always be an element of personal judgement into it.

Marvel1

With the number of threads being created about landlords not returning deposits which is not fair and wear and tear then the scheme is good from "crook" landlords.

Crashy_Time

theartfullodger wrote: »

And if the landlord simply complies with the law, no problem.

It's a bit like people whining & whinging about being fined for speeding: It's the law, if you don't want to be done for it, comply!

Very true.