Tenancy Deposit - Multiple breaches/claims

Josh1u

From a landlord website that I'm not able to post the URL of.

"Experts argue that the original legislation was poorly drafted, and so it would seem, as it has created several serious anomalies, one of which led to the seemingly ridiculous situation where a deposit had to be re-protected, and the statutory information re-served on the tenant, every time the tenancy was renewed, or even when it became periodic.

A court ruling led to thousands of landlords and agents being in breach of the rules and subject to a fine, through no fault of their own – it was a shambles. Superstrike Ltd vs. Marino Rodrigues [2013]

The situation was largely corrected (Deregulation Act 2015) and after this most people in the industry then reasonably assumed that there was no longer a need to re-protect a deposit on renewal, or re-served the statutory information, once the original tenancy deposit had been protected.

The is in fact the case, but, where the deposit protection rules on the original tenancy had not complied, to the letter, e.g., protecting within the prescribed period of time, then any subsequent tenancy would require the deposit to be properly protected in accordance with the rules.

It just goes to show how important it is to comply with these legal rules – to the letter – when you realise that any breach in this situation leads to not only a fine of 3-times the deposit, but this for every renewed tenancy where no further protection is made. So, for example, an original tenancy with a deposit of £900, where the rules had been breached, and renewed, for example, 3 times, would lead to a fine of £1200 x 3 x 4 = £14,000.00

– There is no need to re-protect a deposit and re-serve the prescribed information (s213 Notice) when the tenancy is renewed or becomes statutory periodic, when otherwise the tenancy remains the same, providing the correct procedures were followed for the first tenancy."

wesleyad

Depending on judge you are unlikely to get much more than the minimum 1 times deposit as this would be seen as a relatively minor breach (only late by 4 ish days and not giving prescribed info (they could argue they did there's no proof either way)

Josh1u

Would you say 4 days late? I was judging it from the date that I paid it rather than the date the tenancy started. I guess it could be seen either way. The payment was for a tenancy so until the tenancy started there was no tenancy, but equally, the law says from the date the payment was made. Confusing!

wesleyad wrote: »

Depending on judge you are unlikely to get much more than the minimum 1 times deposit as this would be seen as a relatively minor breach (only late by 4 ish days and not giving prescribed info (they could argue they did there's no proof either way)

saajan_12

Josh1u wrote: »

Hi,

I have been in a rental flat for 6 years. Two months ago, I noticed the tenancy deposit hadn't been lodged within 30 days after I paid it and I wasn't given all the required 'prescribed information'. - have you check all 3 schemes? Is it protected now?

I know that I can make a claim for compensation/a penalty. The judge in a small claims court can give a penalty of 3 times the deposit amount for this. - its a penalty (compensation would be if you'd suffered a loss, which you haven't. The judge can decide a penalty between 1 and 3 times, its not necessairly the maximum.

However, after this, I signed four further tenancy agreements. It seems, from what I have researched, that for each of those, because the deposit was not returned and no prescribed information was provided for any of them, I have the ability to make further claims for compensation. - No, you had one tenancy and one deposit. Therefore you have one claim.

So, my question is really do I have to lodge these all as individual claims on the basis that a judge can order at most, three times the deposit for any claim?- There is only one claim. A separate agreement does not create a new tenancy, no matter how much the terms / paperwork / etc change. You maintained constant occupation throughout, and paid one deposit.

.

I knew this sounded familiar! same argument, same response.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5900329/letting-agent-has-repeatedly-not-protected-my-deposit

OscarFoxtrot

Josh1u wrote: »

Hi,

I have been in a rental flat for 6 years. Two months ago, I noticed the tenancy deposit hadn't been lodged within 30 days after I paid it and I wasn't given all the required 'prescribed information'.

I know that I can make a claim for compensation/a penalty. The judge in a small claims court can give a penalty of 3 times the deposit amount for this.

The penalty cannot be applied universally in the small claims channel - you need to check your local court.

However, after this, I signed four further tenancy agreements. It seems, from what I have researched, that for each of those, because the deposit was not returned and no prescribed information was provided for any of them, I have the ability to make further claims for compensation.

So, my question is really do I have to lodge these all as individual claims on the basis that a judge can order at most, three times the deposit for any claim?

No you are limited to one claim.

I have another question about who I am claiming against. Whilst it is usually the landlord who is responsible, the property was sold after two years, meaning he has not been the landlord for some time. However, the lettings agents are named on the tenancy agreement and the deposit was paid to, and lodged in, the letting agents' name.

During my tenancy these letting agents have broken the law. They entered the property without notifying me first. They threatened to come in on a day when I said they could not. These had effects on my disability and my mental health.

So, ideally, I want to take action against the letting agents rather than the landlord.

You sue the current landlord. Well you can try sue the agent; but ultimately the landlord is responsible


You should've changed the locks

If I cannot take legal action for the first claim i.e. it is too near the six year limitation for a contract breach, then presumably, I could take action at another time for the further contracts I signed which, because of the deposit not being lodged correctly when I moved into the flat, are also in breach of the Housing Act.

If anyone has any knowledge of this, then please share, as I have hit a roadblock in terms of researching and I cannot afford a lot of money to find a solicitor.

To file a claim fill out an N208 form and pay £300 (ish)

FBaby

So your deposit wasn't protected for ap eriod of 10 days over the legal requirements. 10 days compared to the 6 years you've been there. And you think that because you suffer from anxiety, it is right your should be entitled to over £10k for the distressed you faced not having your deposit in the scheme especially as you found out about it 6 years later?

There was a need for such a law to be put in place to punish landlords who considered that money theirs and refused to give anything back because the money had been but people like you who have suffered no damage yet see it as a very easy way to get a big chunk in their pocket make me sick. No different to people who claim £1000s in damage when a car only bumped theirs... because they can. Its people like you who make LL so weary of tenants and not are less about their personal circumstances.

Let's hope the judge sees to his senses and award you nothing more than 1x your deposit because they'll have no choice to do so and not a penny more and let's hope you don't find yourself with a nasty landlord who will only stick to the law and the minimum repairs they have to do.

Josh1u

Stop being so judgmental of other people's motives. You have posted nothing factual. 'People like you'? You have no idea of my situation or what has occurred. Your post is unnecessarily rude.

FBaby wrote: »

So your deposit wasn't protected for ap eriod of 10 days over the legal requirements. 10 days compared to the 6 years you've been there. And you think that because you suffer from anxiety, it is right your should be entitled to over £10k for the distressed you faced not having your deposit in the scheme especially as you found out about it 6 years later?

There was a need for such a law to be put in place to punish landlords who considered that money theirs and refused to give anything back because the money had been but people like you who have suffered no damage yet see it as a very easy way to get a big chunk in their pocket make me sick. No different to people who claim £1000s in damage when a car only bumped theirs... because they can. Its people like you who make LL so weary of tenants and not are less about their personal circumstances.

Let's hope the judge sees to his senses and award you nothing more than 1x your deposit because they'll have no choice to do so and not a penny more and let's hope you don't find yourself with a nasty landlord who will only stick to the law and the minimum repairs they have to do.

Cakeguts

Calm down. Now start again without getting emotional.



You can if you want to make a claim regarding the original deposit not being protected in time.



You might want to think about how the landlord will react to this?


You might want to have a think about whether you want to continue living there?


You might also want to think about what has annoyed you. (I don't think it really has anything to do with what you have posted here) It would be better to try to resolve that problem?

wesleyad

Josh1u wrote: »

Would you say 4 days late? I was judging it from the date that I paid it rather than the date the tenancy started. I guess it could be seen either way. The payment was for a tenancy so until the tenancy started there was no tenancy, but equally, the law says from the date the payment was made. Confusing!

Yes you are correct it would be 10 days late, but still my point is this law was designed to stop a$$h0le landlords keeping the money and fobbing off the tenant who had very little power. The penalties are structured accordingly.

An sloppy admin error (which is basically this) is less serious than the LL not protecting at all, and then keeping it at the end (a lot of LLs used to see the deposit as extra rent, and some still do). So I doubt you'll get much more than the 1X. But still 1X is better than nothing.

Marvel1

FBaby wrote: »

There was a need for such a law to be put in place to punish landlords who considered that money theirs and refused to give anything back because the money had been but people like you who have suffered no damage yet see it as a very easy way to get a big chunk in their pocket make me sick.

Landlord have 30 days to protect it, that's being generous.

OP: It is only 1 claim though.