TDS - letter from tenant

aneary

I get FBaby's point.

Say a Landlord in London puts in a deposit a day late and the deposit happened to be £2500 (s)he gets a penalty of £2500. A scummy LL doesn't put the deposit in a scheme at all but the deposit is only £500 penalty therefore the penalty is a max of £1500.

Maybe the judges should have a min of £100 fine up to a max of three times the deposit then admin errors which actually don't impact the tenant (I'm a tenant btw) don't end up in court (freeing up the courts) but the actions of the scummy LL's do.

Pixie5740

How onerous is it really to protect a deposit within 30 days? To be fair if a significant number of landlords hadn't routinely treated the tenants' deposits as their own money and refused to give it back at the end of tenancies the legislation probably wouldn't exist.

Comms69

aneary wrote: »

I get FBaby's point.

Say a Landlord in London puts in a deposit a day late and the deposit happened to be £2500 (s)he gets a penalty of £2500. A scummy LL doesn't put the deposit in a scheme at all but the deposit is only £500 penalty therefore the penalty is a max of £1500.

Maybe the judges should have a min of £100 fine up to a max of three times the deposit then admin errors which actually don't impact the tenant (I'm a tenant btw) don't end up in court (freeing up the courts) but the actions of the scummy LL's do.

BUT the LLs are also making a different degree of money from it.


Landlord 1 is making £30,000 per year


Landlord 2 is making £6,000 per year


The penalty is therefore still more punitive on scummy landlord.

fairy_lights

How hard is it to just protect the damn deposit though? Is it a particularly onerous task, do landlords have to trek for days to cross in to Mordor and throw the deposit money in to the protective eye of Sauron?
Or can they just do it in 5 minutes on their laptop?

Marvel1

Landlords who are not happy being fined for paying into the scheme on day 31, do you expect the deposit to be paid before tenant moves in?

parkrunner

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Maybe landlords who persistently flout the rules should be banned from being landlords. 12 penalty points and they are out!

Now that idea I like as a replacement for the existing law.

System

aneary wrote: »

I get FBaby's point.

Say a Landlord in London puts in a deposit a day late and the deposit happened to be £2500 (s)he gets a penalty of £2500. A scummy LL doesn't put the deposit in a scheme at all but the deposit is only £500 penalty therefore the penalty is a max of £1500.

Maybe the judges should have a min of £100 fine up to a max of three times the deposit then admin errors which actually don't impact the tenant (I'm a tenant btw) don't end up in court (freeing up the courts) but the actions of the scummy LL's do.

The wording of the legislation probably doesn't back me up here, but I don't see day 31 as 1 day late; I see it as 30 days late. Ideally, you should protect the deposit on the day you get it. The system recognises that this isn't always practical or easy, and so gives you 30 days' grace before you start getting punished. If anything 30 days seems generous to me!

Marvel1

x-caitlin-x wrote: »

The wording of the legislation probably doesn't back me up here, but I don't see day 31 as 1 day late; I see it as 30 days late. Ideally, you should protect the deposit on the day you get it. The system recognises that this isn't always practical or easy, and so gives you 30 days' grace before you start getting punished. If anything 30 days seems generous to me!

Originally it was 14 but they moaned it was not enough time so it was amended :rotfl:

G_M

x-caitlin-x wrote: »

The wording of the legislation probably doesn't back me up here, but I don't see day 31 as 1 day late; I see it as 30 days late. Ideally, you should protect the deposit on the day you get it. The system recognises that this isn't always practical or easy, and so gives you 30 days' grace before you start getting punished. If anything 30 days seems generous to me!

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.........

landlorduk

213Requirements relating to tenancy deposits
(1)Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.
(2)No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3)Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of [F1 30 ] days beginning with the date on which it is received.
(4)For the purposes of this section “the initial requirements” of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.
(5)A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a)the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b)compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c)the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,as may be prescribed.
(6)The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a)in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b)within the period of [F2 30 ] days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.
(7)No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money.
(8)In subsection (7) “deposit” means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—
(a)the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b)the discharge of any liability of his,arising under or in connection with the tenancy.
(9)The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary.
(10)In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

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