Letting Agent has repeatedly not protected my deposit

Sally_Home

Hey guys.
I've been in a flat for 3½ years. Two Fixed term one year Tenancy's then reverting
to Periodic tenancy. At the start of renting the property I paid six weeks rent as
a deposit. This was to be paid into one of the Deposit schemes as detailed on the
Agency website. On the rental start, I received a ton of paperwork from the Agent.

I only realised 8 months ago that I had received no receipt for my deposit,
though I have bank records to prove it was paid. I requested the Agent provide
a copy receipt three or four times and this was eventually provided, along with
a pile of printed documents. I subsequently realised that these documents were
a template of the Deposit Proscribed information, with a few of my details on it
but most of the boxes still showing the template prompts telling the Agent to fill
in the details specific to me.

I then checked with all three Deposit schemes:
Two had never heard of me. The third had my name, address and aprox date
of the initial start of the first rental term. But the Agent never completed the
transaction and never provided them with my deposit.

Over the two weeks following my Deposit receipt request, the Deposit
company advised me of a fresh application made by the agent, for my
deposit. This cumulated with the majority of my deposit being passed
to the Deposit Scheme.

I understand that the likely penalty is an immediate return of my deposit
plus a penalty of x3 the deposit (Based upon the time lapse& that an
Agency is a professional organisation obliged to abide with housing law)

Summary
1. Deposit not secured at start or at any point of 1st fixed term
2. Deposit not secured at start or at any point of 2nd fixed term
3. Deposit not secured at start of Periodic tenancy
4. Proscribed Information has never been supplied. (A template is not compliant)
5. The amount eventually put in the Deposit scheme is less than
the deposit I paid.

Question
Would I be able to pursue 5 compensation claims for each of the above failings?
Is the Agent liable? Or must I take action against my Landlord, then later assist
him to claim redress against the Agent?
(I have always been on good terms with the LL and he is aware of all the above
facts for some months. He is aware that he is legally compromised by the Agent
and if the Agent ceases trading, he would be liable with nowhere to claim against)
I also identified a likely Deposit fraud by the Agent against the LL & the previous
tenant. Yet he is still using them to manage the rental. :think:

I would appreciate advice on the above and the best way to pursue.
Thanks.

anselld

You claim against the Landlord, not the agent. It is for the Landlord to sort things out with their agent.

If you are thinking of 15x deposit you are trying it on! It is one claim, up to 3x deposit.

Sally_Home

Trying it on...
Humm, :think: You mean a bit like the Agent realising that they hadn't
protected my deposit. For over 3 years. Then subsequently trying
to cover their backs. BTW, my deposit is still not fully protected to
the full amount I paid them...

You do know that dodgy Agents taking deposits then not handing
it back through going bust or changing company ownership,
causes tenants to face homelessness through the theft of their
deposit.
No deposit return = No deposit for the next rented property.

And while some actions by the Agent are misrepresentation,
most of the mess is I suspect due to the fast staff turnover,
both at this agent and in the industry in general.
(Anecdotal, from several staff in conversation with me)

I feel the term 'Trying it on' is inappropriate.
I actually suspected that I would be limited to one overall claim.
But if five claims are viable, I'd certainly pursue my legal rights.

It's my money that has been mismanaged through professional
incompetence. I would expect you to be on my side.
If this was California, I'd expect Punitive damages to also
be applied. The letting industry is a huge hole of exploitation.
Yes there are good guys. Like the Agent at my last property.
But some bad ones (mainly through incompetence) too.
And as their whole income is based solely on a proportion
of rent paid, it's only fair the bad Agents are punitively held
to account.

You're either with me or against me.
{George W Bush said that*}


*Well not those exact words, but you know what I mean**.


**Gulf war 3 :shocked:

anselld

3x is designed to be punitive as it is.
However, please be clear that deposit protection is the Landlord responsibility so, no matter how successful you are claiming, you will be punishing the Landlord not the Agent.

saajan_12

Sally_Home wrote: »

Hey guys.
I've been in a flat for 3½ years. Two Fixed term one year Tenancy's then reverting to Periodic tenancy. At the start of renting the property I paid six weeks rent as a deposit. This was to be paid into one of the Deposit schemes as detailed on the
Agency website. On the rental start, I received a ton of paperwork from the Agent. - didn't you read the paperwork?

I only realised 8 months ago that I had received no receipt for my deposit, though I have bank records to prove it was paid. I requested the Agent provide a copy receipt three or four times and this was eventually provided, along with a pile of printed documents. I subsequently realised that these documents were
a template of the Deposit Proscribed information, with a few of my details on it but most of the boxes still showing the template prompts telling the Agent to fill in the details specific to me. - lots of 'realising' months after the fact.. why didn't you ask for a receipt when you paid in the first place?

I then checked with all three Deposit schemes:
Two had never heard of me. The third had my name, address and aprox date of the initial start of the first rental term. But the Agent never completed the transaction and never provided them with my deposit.

Over the two weeks following my Deposit receipt request, the Deposit company advised me of a fresh application made by the agent, for my deposit. This cumulated with the majority of my deposit being passed to the Deposit Scheme.

I understand that the likely penalty is an immediate return of my deposit plus a penalty of x3 the deposit - no, its a penalty of BETWEEN 1 and 3 times your deposit. The original deposit doesn't have to be returned outside the usual procedure ie when the tenancy ends, less any deductions..
(Based upon the time lapse& that an Agency is a professional organisation obliged to abide with housing law) - the agency is irrelevant, and not professionals. The LL is responsible for protecting your deposit.

Summary
1. Deposit not secured at start or at any point of 1st fixed term
2. Deposit not secured at start or at any point of 2nd fixed term
3. Deposit not secured at start of Periodic tenancy
4. Proscribed Information has never been supplied. (A template is not compliant)
5. The amount eventually put in the Deposit scheme is less than
the deposit I paid.

Question
Would I be able to pursue 5 compensation claims for each of the above failings? - Absolutely not. The penalty is 1-3x THE deposit. There was only 1 deposit and 1 tenancy. It's not about how many 'counts' they failed.
Is the Agent liable? Or must I take action against my Landlord, then later assist him to claim redress against the Agent? - no, you have no relationship wiht the agent so they have done you no wrong. You claim of the LL as they were responsible for protecting your deposit and failed to do so. Whether they can claim for the agency depends on whether they had a specific enough contract with the agency and were indemnified against penalties.
(I have always been on good terms with the LL and he is aware of all the above facts for some months. - then why didn't the LL sort it out there and then by protecting your deposit? Why do you want to claim a harsh penalty from someone you're on good terms with and where you suffer no loss (once the LL protects it?) He is aware that he is legally compromised by the Agent and if the Agent ceases trading, he would be liable with nowhere to claim against)
I also identified a likely Deposit fraud by the Agent against the LL & the previous tenant. Yet he is still using them to manage the rental. :think:

I would appreciate advice on the above and the best way to pursue.
Thanks.

You certainly don't have 5 claims for 15x anything. The penalty is 1-3x THE deposit. There was one tenancy and one deposit. (signing new fixed term contracts just changes the contract but the tenancy only ends once you move out). The original deposit still stays with the LL (or in the protection scheme) and only needs to be returned after the tenancy ends as usual, less any deductions.

My advice would be to speak to the LL, get them to protect the full / balance of the deposit, and then you'll have no loss as you get full benefit of the ADR etc at the end of the tenancy. If however you do want to punish this person you're on good terms with, you could claim for 3x the deposit for late / partial protection and failure to serve prescribed information. I expect you'd get 1-2x deposit, because it was eventually protected, so you do benefit from the ADR and the LL can't just steal the deposit without you suing.

theartfullodger

You say flat. Does landlord live in same building & it's not purpose-built?

If so deposit protection not required.

Pixie5740

If this is an AST then the landlord, or an agent acting on his (her) behalf did not repeatedly fail to protect your deposit. They failed to protect it within 30 days of receiving it and that is what you can sue them for where the court must award you not less than one and not more than three times the value of the deposit as a penalty.

Read G_M's Deposits: payment, protection and return.

csgohan4

OP I know you have right to sue the LL for 3x the amount but 15x, you really are taking the biscuit. Where is it written you can do 15x??


What will likely happen is they protect your deposit on threat of court action and you receive nothing in return

theartfullodger

it's up to 3x for each tenancy.

Comms69

Sally_Home wrote: »

Trying it on...
Humm, :think: You mean a bit like the Agent realising that they hadn't
protected my deposit. For over 3 years. Then subsequently trying
to cover their backs. BTW, my deposit is still not fully protected to
the full amount I paid them... - YOUR CLAIM IS AGAINST THE LANDLORD

You do know that dodgy Agents taking deposits then not handing
it back through going bust or changing company ownership,
causes tenants to face homelessness through the theft of their
deposit.
No deposit return = No deposit for the next rented property. - Again landlord, not agent

And while some actions by the Agent are misrepresentation,
most of the mess is I suspect due to the fast staff turnover,
both at this agent and in the industry in general.
(Anecdotal, from several staff in conversation with me) - irrelevant, landlord

I feel the term 'Trying it on' is inappropriate. - totally appropriate.
I actually suspected that I would be limited to one overall claim.
But if five claims are viable, I'd certainly pursue my legal rights. - just 1.

It's my money that has been mismanaged through professional
incompetence. - By the LANDLORD I would expect you to be on my side.
If this was California, I'd expect Punitive damages to also
be applied. - 1: these are in essence punitive damages 2: US law isn't relevant is it...... The letting industry is a huge hole of exploitation.
Yes there are good guys. Like the Agent at my last property.
But some bad ones (mainly through incompetence) too.
And as their whole income is based solely on a proportion
of rent paid, it's only fair the bad Agents are punitively held
to account.

You're either with me or against me.
{George W Bush said that*}


*Well not those exact words, but you know what I mean**.


**Gulf war 3 :shocked:

.... you could atleast google a quote if you don't know one.


Now go sue your landlord

Pixie5740

theartfullodger wrote: »

it's up to 3x for each tenancy.

Is it? You might be right though. I thought the Deregulation Act 2011 meant that the deposit only had to be protected within the first 30 days of originally receiving it and then it would remain protected for all subsequent tenancies without the need to re-issue the prescribed information each time a new fixed term or periodic tenancy started. I know some schemes require the deposit to be re-registered for each new tenancy but that's down to the scheme themselves rather than the law. If that's the case with registered deposits does the same not then apply in the case where some eejit has forgotten to protect the deposit i.e. they get penalised once not for every "new" tenancy.

Even if the OP could sue for each new tenancy I'm not sure where they are getting 15 from because they have only listed two fixed terms and one periodic, maybe my maths is off but I thought 3 x 3 = 9.

Then again perhaps the OP's landlord didn't have to protect the deposit because the type of tenancy/licence doesn't require it. Perhaps the OP could clarify.