Law regarding statutory periodic and deposit protection

solidpro

Hi there...

anselld

They can sue for up to 3x, however considering it was protected from the beginning and again at the end a judge is highly unlikely to award the maximum 3x, much more likely 1x.  Did you issue the prescribed information?  Up to you if you want to settle or fight it.
Perhaps next time use one of the custodial schemes which are free and require no special action when the fixed term ends.

AdrianC

solidpro said:

However they claim they are the victims of injustice for the period of unprotected period and therefore under s213 housing act 2004 they're entitled to sue. Their solicitor has asked us to settle for almost the full amount or reply.

Their SOLICITOR...?
It's just a simple small claim... (I presume 3x is <£10k?)

Along with the hysteria around "victims of injustice", they're clearly trying to scare you. I think my reply would be to simply state that you will submit a full defence to the small claim when you receive it.

FYI, this is the relevant section of the legislation...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/213
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/214

theartfullodger

Tenant is perfectly entitled to sue.  Parliament has debated and passed law twice.  2nd time to give poor harassed downtrodden landlords extra time to do a little bit of simple admin.

The law came in after years and years and years of landlords ripping tenants off. Penalties to encourage landlords to comply with the law.

If you don't want the risk or the huge admin load just don't take a deposit.  

Artful:. Landlord since 2000.

solidpro

.anselld said:

They can sue for up to 3x, however considering it was protected from the beginning and again at the end a judge is highly unlikely to award the maximum 3x, much more likely 1x.  Did you issue the prescribed information?  Up to you if you want to settle or fight it.
Perhaps next time use one of the custodial schemes which are free and require no special action when the fixed term ends.

Can you recommend 1 or 2 to look into?

Thanks

NameUnavailable

AdrianC said:

solidpro said:

However they claim they are the victims of injustice for the period of unprotected period and therefore under s213 housing act 2004 they're entitled to sue. Their solicitor has asked us to settle for almost the full amount or reply.

Their SOLICITOR...?
It's just a simple small claim... (I presume 3x is <£10k?)

Along with the hysteria around "victims of injustice", they're clearly trying to scare you. I think my reply would be to simply state that you will submit a full defence to the small claim when you receive it.

What would the defence be though, apart from yes, I know it should be protected but I forgot.

Ignorance is no defence in law, as you probably know. Surely it is better for the OP to try and settle now. Maybe return the full deposit on the basis that they accept that as full and final?

solidpro

A lot of advice online regarding s213 and s214 is around not protecting the deposit.

anselld

solidpro said:

Can you recommend 1 or 2 to look into?

Thanks

There are three custodial schemes, all listed here ...
https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection
(assuming England and Wales)

[Deleted User]

solidpro said:

Hi
We're new landlords and our second tenant has now vacated the property but is suing us for a period of unprotection in their deposit. Apparently they can sue us for 3 times the deposit amount. This started because we returned the deposit minus a small amount for some burn damage to the kitchen and instead of a civil conversation they just decided to do this.

We protected the deposit as we should have done in line with the initial tenancy, but at the end of the AST we didn't get a clear response as to what they wanted to do and I didn't actually know that you had to call up the company you initially protect the deposit with and put it (for free) under a "statutory periodic". We did reprotect it when we realised this and the deposit insurance company say they can still dispute the burn damage with them.

However they claim they are the victims of injustice for the period of unprotected period and therefore under s213 housing act 2004 they're entitled to sue. Their solicitor has asked us to settle for almost the full amount or reply.

Does anyone have any advice (besides independent legal advice)?

Thanks

Yes. Sign up to NRLA and use the advice line. My understanding is that there is no requirement to reprotect a deposit at the end of a fixed term which goes periodic. Perhaps there is something I dont know, given that you believe the protection lapsed.

solidpro

NameUnavailable said:

I know it should be protected but I forgot. 

I've got a certificate which says they're covered from 2019 to 3 months after they vacate and had a phone call with the authorised deposit protection scheme saying  the disputed £250 is protected under the scheme. The tenant is welcome to dispute the £250 with them but has chosen not to.
The tenant is claiming they're unprotected.

The deposit was returned within 7 days of them leaving minus the £250 for burns in the kitchen.

AdrianC

NameUnavailable said:

AdrianC said:

solidpro said:

However they claim they are the victims of injustice for the period of unprotected period and therefore under s213 housing act 2004 they're entitled to sue. Their solicitor has asked us to settle for almost the full amount or reply.

Their SOLICITOR...?
It's just a simple small claim... (I presume 3x is <£10k?)

Along with the hysteria around "victims of injustice", they're clearly trying to scare you. I think my reply would be to simply state that you will submit a full defence to the small claim when you receive it.

What would the defence be though, apart from yes, I know it should be protected but I forgot.

Ignorance is no defence in law, as you probably know. Surely it is better for the OP to try and settle now. Maybe return the full deposit on the basis that they accept that as full and final? 

The defence is factual.
The OP won't get away scot-free. The tenants are in the right. The aim is to minimise the penalty.