TDS - letter from tenant

FBaby

The law is entirely in line with the ‘potential’ harm. In that the potential loss is the deposit. Should the LL become bankrupt etc.

You're back to trying to justify that this law is there for a good reason. That is not what I dispute, I do totally support it as an outcome of too many LLs using the deposit as a 'free to do what I want with' payment. My dispute is with the way it is applied. It should be at the discretion of the judge to decide the sum that should be applied rather than a x1/x2/x3 rule which has no common sense.

As said, judges don't like time wasters and opportunists, they know that a number of those taking their LL to court will be exactly that, yet against their own judgement, will find with no choice but to apply a disproportionate penalty.

Your example of going bankrupt doesn't hold, if it did, the law would say that the deposit needs to be protected the day it's being given, not within 30 days. Any LL can go bankrupt on day 29 as much as on day 31.

I agree no harm has been caused. No harm is caused 9/10 when someone speeds. Or takes recreational drugs. Or keeps a child off school. Or whatever.

But it's not about the harm that has been caused, but the harm that it could cause. If you drive 40 in a 30 speed limit road, your chance of killing the child that crosses the road is much higher (can't remember the statistics, but it does make you think) than if you stayed under the limit.

The risk of a tenant not getting their deposit back, leading them to homelessness because their deposit was protected on day 40 rather than day 30 is just about none.

But the law punishes on scale

indeed, but surely there must be a test of reasonability when it comes to deciding what that scale is, and in the case of tenancy penalties resulting from deposits protected late (as opposed to not protected at all), I don't see it.

molerat

landlorduk wrote: »

It is quite clear that the rules are the date at which the LL recieves it, right?

In this case the landlord is a legal entity and not a person so for Landlord read Landlord or his Agent.

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

You're back to trying to justify that this law is there for a good reason. That is not what I dispute, I do totally support it as an outcome of too many LLs using the deposit as a 'free to do what I want with' payment. My dispute is with the way it is applied. It should be at the discretion of the judge to decide the sum that should be applied rather than a x1/x2/x3 rule which has no common sense.

As said, judges don't like time wasters and opportunists, they know that a number of those taking their LL to court will be exactly that, yet against their own judgement, will find with no choice but to apply a disproportionate penalty.

Your example of going bankrupt doesn't hold, if it did, the law would say that the deposit needs to be protected the day it's being given, not within 30 days. Any LL can go bankrupt on day 29 as much as on day 31.


But it's not about the harm that has been caused, but the harm that it could cause. If you drive 40 in a 30 speed limit road, your chance of killing the child that crosses the road is much higher (can't remember the statistics, but it does make you think) than if you stayed under the limit.

The risk of a tenant not getting their deposit back, leading them to homelessness because their deposit was protected on day 40 rather than day 30 is just about none.

indeed, but surely there must be a test of reasonability when it comes to deciding what that scale is, and in the case of tenancy penalties resulting from deposits protected late (as opposed to not protected at all), I don't see it.

True but it’s like the drink drive limit, we could have it at 0, but it’s set to 35mg in breath.

By scale I was referrring to the earlier point. If me and you both stole the same thing, we would be fined differently- based upon our weekly income.

So good landlord pays more but it’s common in law.

G_M

Sigh!

Deep deep sigh.

Not even worth commenting further.

kinger101

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

In my experience you will be fine. If it gets to court you MAY be asked to return the entire deposit but if there is damage etc you are just as likely to be able to retain some of it. Judges do not like time wasting claims and this is just that

Judges can't decide statute doesn't exist.

FBaby

True but it’s like the drink drive limit, we could have it at 0, but it’s set to 35mg in breath.

Indeed, but at least this is based on some evidence, ie. that awareness is ok up to 35mg in breath. What is the evidence that a tenant's rights are more protected if the penalty is triggered at 31 day rather than 29?

By scale I was referrring to the earlier point. If me and you both stole the same thing, we would be fined differently- based upon our weekly income.

Indeed, and it's now the case for speeding too isn't? That's how it is, but again, not something I think is justified because any legal penalty should be based on the potential outcome, not on a mean for punishment which is what it is if based on income.

So good landlord pays more but it’s common in law.

You mean richer landlords, although then again, that's not forcibly the truth as a LL whose property is mortgage free is likely to be richer than a LL whose mortgage is huge, even if the deposit of the former is much lower than that received by the latter.

I'm debating for the sake of debating! There are quite a few laws that I really struggle to grasp the foundations of, and this one is one of them, but as you've made it clear, it's not an issue for me because I do make absolutely certain that the deposit is protected on time (which led my getting on the agency's nerves as I kept asking them to send me the evidence despite them reminding me I was paying them to take care of it!).

ThePants999

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

In my experience you will be fine. If it gets to court you MAY be asked to return the entire deposit but if there is damage etc you are just as likely to be able to retain some of it. Judges do not like time wasting claims and this is just that

If in future you could not just waltz into a thread, skim the OP, ignore the 90+ replies that exist already and post some twaddle that's already been thoroughly debunked, that'd be grand, ta.

System

G_M wrote: »

You're right. The leglislaton does not back you up.

Which makes what you 'see it as' a case of wishful thinking.

We can all find laws we feel should have beeen draughted differently (or not at all), but the way to address that is via your MP, or the ballot box.........

Fair point; I worded my point poorly, and wasn't trying to make a comment about the actual legislation (hence my disclaimer!) I was addressing the comments saying that applying a penalty for being just 1 day late is unfair. I would agree that the penalty could be considered unfair, if less time was given to fulfill the requirement. Given that landlords already have 30 days, which feels like quite a long time to me, being 1 day outside that isn't as excusable.