TDS - letter from tenant

Comms69

landlorduk wrote: »

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?

NO! Seriously, have you read the replies?!

fairy_lights

landlorduk wrote: »

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

need_an_answer

OK
So on what date did your LA receive the deposit,They are acting on your behalf and as such the clock ticks from there.

If you are still looking for a port of call to place blame at,then perhaps look at the timescales between your agent receiving the money and transferring it to you.

It is only now that I am getting a sense of understanding as to why it took a further 14 days to register the deposit.
It is a shame that you did think to raise the question of how long you had to register the deposit before you did.

OP if you continue to believe that the general consensus and advice you have been given here is incorrect then may I suggest that you do challenge the tenants request and once it is all settled perhaps you would be good enough to return with the definitive answer as applied by the court.

SerialRenter

This thread has given me a good laugh, it's almost as if some of the posters here think its impossible to protect a deposit until they've received it from the letting agent.

It's not like each pound has a special code attached to it, and you can ONLY protect those pounds that have come from the Tenant. How about the landlord instead open up their wallet and protect their own pennies until the deposit comes through from the agents, after all, you know the deposit is coming because you wouldn't hire agents that hand over the keys before getting the deposit now would you?

aneary

landlorduk wrote: »

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?

The Law will consider you and the LA as the same unit so when it states when the LL receives it it means the LL or any agent of the LL.

theartfullodger

For some people it's unwise to be a landlord, especially if they are as pig-headed as I am, and as ignorant of the law as I was when I started:

FBaby

You do realise that LLs (and drivers) are total exempt from all this...... simply by just following the law.

You know that's not the point I was making. The government could introduce a law that says that everyone who is 5 minutes late to work can be fine £500 and then argue that if people don't want to be fine, they just have to follow the law.

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

Totally irrelevant. The penalty should be in line with the potential harm caused by breaking the law. My point is that when a deposit is protected just a few days late, and the tenant is not even aware of this fact at the time, no harm has been caused to the tenant. They will still be able to use the scheme when they move out exactly the same way than if the deposit had been protected a day earlier. The penalty is fair, the amount isn't.

How hard is it to just protect the damn deposit though?

It isn't but again, the value penalty should not be high on the basis that it's easy not to break the law. This is especially in cases that are non straight forward, when the LL might indeed be under the assumption that the deposit had been protected by the agency.

Wanderingpomm

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

Pixie5740

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

Is that an experience of tenants taking you to court for failing to protect their deposit within the legally required 30 days? I know that it's not.

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

You know that's not the point I was making. The government could introduce a law that says that everyone who is 5 minutes late to work can be fine £500 and then argue that if people don't want to be fine, they just have to follow the law.


Totally irrelevant. The penalty should be in line with the potential harm caused by breaking the law. My point is that when a deposit is protected just a few days late, and the tenant is not even aware of this fact at the time, no harm has been caused to the tenant. They will still be able to use the scheme when they move out exactly the same way than if the deposit had been protected a day earlier. The penalty is fair, the amount isn't.

It isn't but again, the value penalty should not be high on the basis that it's easy not to break the law. This is especially in cases that are non straight forward, when the LL might indeed be under the assumption that the deposit had been protected by the agency.

Well that is how the law works. I appreciate you don’t agree. I don’t agree with loads of bits of legislation, but if I choose to break the law, as I have done, I also accept the risk that I could be punished.

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

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 the law punishes on scale. E.g. the fine for theft is not the value of the item stolen