Deposit protection/return?

maisonette

[SIZE=-1]I have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with a registered social housing provider (housing association) - the tenancy type is classed as intermediate market rent, I've paid about £65,000 in rent over the last 9 years, no housing benefit (or benefits of any kind) claimed if that makes a difference.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I'm now in the process of buying a house and will be giving notice to leave once I've exchanged on the house I'm buying. I googled housing association deposit return to see if there was some kind of recognised timeframe the deposit had to be returned by, but didn't come up with anything. I also can't work out if the deposit should have been protected, some of what I've read suggests it does - as even though the landlord is a housing association, the tenancy type is an assured shorthold tenancy. Other information suggested it didn't need to be protected but not sure if that's on the basis of the housing association tenancy in question not being an assured shorthold, whereas mine is.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]My tenancy started 1st March 2008, I've never received any information about the deposit being protected. I checked the three deposit schemes which google led me to and there's no trace of it being registered.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]There was no inventory done when I moved in, and no record of the state of the property. The property is, in my opinion, in good overall condition but I'm just concerned they'll try and charge (exorbitant public sector contractor rates!) for things like removing decking - I did ask permission to install the decking (by email, I have a copy of the email giving permissionl) but their website now says they don't allow/give permission for decking so I'm guessing they'll want to rip it out and maybe try and charge me for doing so.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Other possible issues are DIY repairs to the fence, the repairs were done by me rather than a fence company - the fence was paid for by me (again with permission) but I have a feeling they'll try and say it needs to be a professional repair, it's obviously a DIY job from looking at it, although it does the job! There are other minor issues that I've just lived with eg shower rail is broken and doesn't hold shower head, you just wedge it in - it's been like that since I moved in and I've had no issue with it but don't want them to try and charge me the privilege of paying to fix it when it was broken, although still usable, when I moved in.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Anybody have any thoughts on whether the deposit should have been protected, which will therefore make it easier to get back if they do try and and charge me for 'works' needed which I dispute?[/SIZE]

pmlindyloo

I think housing associations do have to protect deposits.

Have a chat with Shelter (the professionals online)

http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/tenancy_deposits/check_if_your_tenancy_deposit_is_protected?&gclid=CLCbxdmYjdQCFSQW0wodUKcEMQ

benjus

What have you seen that suggests that Social Landlords do not have to protect deposits? Can you share some links?

AFAIK the deposit protection law applies to all ASTs.

Is this in England? The law does differ depending on where in the UK you are.

maisonette

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I think housing associations do have to protect deposits.

Have a chat with Shelter (the professionals online)

http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/tenancy_deposits/check_if_your_tenancy_deposit_is_protected?&gclid=CLCbxdmYjdQCFSQW0wodUKcEMQ

Thanks for the link, if the HA cause any issues when it comes to the deposit return I'll give them a call - hopefully won't need to trouble them but it's good to know they can advise if needed.

benjus wrote: »

What have you seen that suggests that Social Landlords do not have to protect deposits? Can you share some links?

AFAIK the deposit protection law applies to all ASTs.

Is this in England? The law does differ depending on where in the UK you are.

Just general googling! The pages I've read most likely apply to non-AST housing association tenancies, which I would imagine is the bulk of HA tenancies.

From what I've read I do think that the deposit should have been protected purely as it's an AST - just surprised a large housing association wouldn't know this and have done so as required.

I'm in England btw.

martindow

maisonette wrote: »

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]There was no inventory done when I moved in, and no record of the state of the property. [/SIZE]

This can be in your favour as inventories provide evidence for the initial state of the house for the LL. As you've been there 9 years a lot of wear and tear will have taken place and LLs can't claim betterment.

G_M

Housing Act 2004:

Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must,..........

* Deposits: payment, protection and return

maisonette

Thanks G_M

Thinking about the circumstances I wonder if they thought they didn't need to protect it as they already had my money - the circumstances were that I've been a tenant with them since 2006, with the standard deposit paid at the start of that tenancy. In early 2007 I paid an extra deposit to allow me to have a pet in that property.

I then moved to my new property in March 2008 and signed a new AST with them, as there were no issues caused by my pet in the first property they refunded 1/2 the deposit, meaning I had then 'paid' the standard one months deposit, albeit they already had the money in their account as it was from the first AST on the other property.

Hope the above makes sense, I think that muddies the waters somewhat!

G_M

All irrelevant.

Any new deposit (ie for the pet) since 2007 must be protected.

Any deposit taken before 2007, must be protected if the tenancy in question either becomes periodic, or is renewed, after 2007.

Whether the landlord knows /understands the law is another matter. I didn't know the speed limit was 30, but that was no excuse for driving at 70 so I got done.

ThePants999

Not claiming anything here, but I note the piece G_M quoted says "any deposit paid to a person". Any chance the HA might not qualify as a "person"? I doubt such a loophole exists, or any corporate landlord would have the same one, but figured I'd ask...

G_M

ThePants999 wrote: »

Not claiming anything here, but I note the piece G_M quoted says "any deposit paid to a person". Any chance the HA might not qualify as a "person"? I doubt such a loophole exists, or any corporate landlord would have the same one, but figured I'd ask...

Had a quick look and can't acually see where I wrote that. However, if I did, then it's my poor wording.

Answer is - no, it also applies to companies and any institution letting out property on an Assured Tenancy.

If you let me know here I wrote that, I'll amend.

Miss_Samantha

ThePants999 wrote: »

Not claiming anything here, but I note the piece G_M quoted says "any deposit paid to a person". Any chance the HA might not qualify as a "person"? I doubt such a loophole exists, or any corporate landlord would have the same one, but figured I'd ask...

No, because what G_M quoted is actually not relevant.

The subsections which create an obligation to protect and give the prescribed information , with penalties for non-compliance, refer to "the landlord".