Landlord didn't protect deposit within 30 days

silvercar

We have however already lost out on properties that would be suitable as a result of not being able to leave yet.

Why?

Do you live in an area with a shortage of properties? Of rising rents?
If not then there should be new properties becoming available as quickly as others are being taken.

Just curious.

System

wesleyad wrote: »

Do you have any more info on that as everything we have seen suggests the judge must award a minimum of 1x the amount? I've never seen a case where the judge has let them off for a minor offence.

https://www.landlordsguild.com/localism-act-and-tenancy-deposit-schemes/

The landlord “must” pay the applicant (former tenant) not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times deposit within 14 days

Taken directly from the .Gov website


If the court finds your landlord hasn’t protected your deposit, it can order the person holding the deposit to either:

• repay it to you
• pay it into a TDP scheme’s bank account within 14 days

The court may also order the landlord to pay you up to 3 times the deposit within 14 days of making the order.


https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/if-your-landlord-doesnt-protect-your-deposit


Clearly says may and not must

G_M

Simonr66 wrote: »

Taken directly from the .Gov website

If the court finds your landlord hasn’t protected your deposit, it can order the person holding the deposit to either:

• repay it to you
• pay it into a TDP scheme’s bank account within 14 days

The court may also order the landlord to pay you up to 3 times the deposit within 14 days of making the order.

https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/if-your-landlord-doesnt-protect-your-deposit

Clearly says may and not must

Well spotted! Sadly the gov websit is riddled (as here!) with errors.


A more reliable source of information is the leglislation itself (as amended) ie the Housing Act 2004:section 214 3(a) & 4:

(3A)The court may order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay all or part of it to the applicant within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.]

(4)The court must F13... order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money [F14 not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than ] three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

Note: F13 & F14 refer to amendments made to the Housing Act by the Localism Act 2011. I suspect the gov website was not updated when the Localism Act came into force.........

FBaby

The thing is, it might be the error of the letting agent, so even though the LL will be liable, he has an option to sue the agency if they were responsible under contract to protect the deposit. If so, his solicitor might tell him to let you take him to court and thrm sue the agent for what he owes you and then sue you for breach of contract if you leave early. He's losing nothing, the two losers would be you and the agent.

Angelhales2601

FBaby wrote: »

The thing is, it might be the error of the letting agent, so even though the LL will be liable, he has an option to sue the agency if they were responsible under contract to protect the deposit. If so, his solicitor might tell him to let you take him to court and thrm sue the agent for what he owes you and then sue you for breach of contract if you leave early. He's losing nothing, the two losers would be you and the agent.

We won't be in breach of contract as we have made an agreed arrangement to leave a month early.

System

G_M wrote: »

Well spotted! Sadly the gov websit is riddled (as here!) with errors.


A more reliable source of information is the leglislation itself (as amended) ie the Housing Act 2004:section 214 3(a) & 4:

Note: F13 & F14 refer to amendments made to the Housing Act by the Localism Act 2011. I suspect the gov website was not updated when the Localism Act came into force.........

Thanks G_M, You would think that given our laws are written buy the government they would ensure that their own website and guidance is up to date

letitbe90

Simonr66 wrote: »

Thanks G_M, You would think that given our laws are written buy the government they would ensure that their own website and guidance is up to date

Whatever gave you so much faith in our government’s competence, I do wonder

G_M

Simonr66 wrote: »

Thanks G_M, You would think that given our laws are written buy the government they would ensure that their own website and guidance is up to date

Yeah... you'd think.........

tenantwithissue

I have been at this point last year - the landlord did protect the deposit 7 days late and had initially tried to offer us 70% of the deposit, we actually didn't get the letter and by the time we were about to reply he had upped his offer to 100%.

The landlord will owe at least x1, and upto x3. In this case it seems the landlord isn't playing ball at any point and I would go for above x1 - particularly as he was asked and said it was being dealt with when it wasn't.

tenantwithissue

The answer is yes - you get 1-3 times, its a penalty for landlords who don't follow rules. They have 30 days to do it - which is plenty of time.

I have been a tenant and a landlord and it is completely fair. The first thing I do as a landlord is make sure my tenants precious money is protected - and they have peace of mind.

The landlord should do the same - guaranteed the landlord has a spare £1-2k around to protect the money, and doesn't need to have the money physically to protect it.

As a tenant my landlord protected my deposit 7 days late and I got deposit back, plus x1 for it being deposited late.