Law regarding statutory periodic and deposit protection

lookstraightahead

I wonder if all of this has come about because they made a mistake with a burn mark? In the same way as you have made a mistake with the deposit scheme.
i suppose they feel they have nothing to lose. I say this because years ago we were charged for a mark on the curtains and although it wasn't much, I felt very disgruntled as we had looked after the property and the landlord (or agent) was obviously trying to get the cost of the fees back. 

Hannimal

Regardless of being a new landlord or not, one would expect that you are extra careful when dealing with someone else's money

greatcrested

solidpro said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

The judge must award the tenant between 1-3 times the value of the deposit plus the tenant can claim the court costs from you which I believe will be £308 if, or rather when, he wins his case. Any costs the tenant incurs for using a solicitor are on him though, you can’t be made to pay those. 

Can anyone else concur with the above - that it is unlikely we would be liable for their legal costs, and only £308?

....

If the case is allocated to the Small Claims Track (less than £10K) then neither side can claim legal costs though can claim court costs.

However deposit penalty claims using form N208 usually use the Part 8 Procedure and are usually allocated to the Multi Track, where legal costs can be claimed.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/courts_and_legal_action/costs/costs_in_different_tracks

This link describes some of the limitations imposed in Part 8 Procedure cases of this sort:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/courts_and_legal_action/preparing_for_court/process_and_rules_for_taking_a_case_to_court

Note:

A defendant who objects to the use of the Part 8 procedure, for example, because there is a substantial dispute of fact in the case, must state their reasons when filing the acknowledgement of service.[33]

solidpro

lookstraightahead said:

I wonder if all of this has come about because they made a mistake with a burn mark? In the same way as you have made a mistake with the deposit scheme.
i suppose they feel they have nothing to lose. I say this because years ago we were charged for a mark on the curtains and although it wasn't much, I felt very disgruntled as we had looked after the property and the landlord (or agent) was obviously trying to get the cost of the fees back. 

I've read s213 and s214 a few times. 

numbercruncher8

If someone moved into a place for 10 years and the deposit was not protected until the last month, it seems a bit silly to argue they were not affected by it and the deposit was protected only when they needed it, even though that is true.

Obviously that is an extreme example. But the deposit must remain protected during the tenancy. It seems the most straightforward to use a system of strict liability. It went unprotected for over a year, and if not knowing the rules was any kind of defence, everyone would be using it.

Like riding the train for 1 stop without a ticket and getting off and buying a travelcard at the next stop. The purchased ticket on paper covers the first journey, but it does not alter that an offence was committed and someone could be fined if the means existed to prove it.

solidpro

numbercruncher8 said:

If someone....

I get what you're talking about

numbercruncher8

TBH the letter of the law states that a deposit has to be protected. The damages are another issue to that.
It doesn't state that it has to be protected only at the time of the tenant reclaiming it.

It is pretty clear cut that there was a period where the deposit went unprotected, the reason being that you didn't know. Is the period without protection really commensurate with someone doing their best? A few days, maybe, but not a year.

Sure there may not be any intent to disadvantage the tenant, but I don't think that's how it works. If someone didn't protect the deposit for 100 days because they assumed that this was the time limit this is not really relevant, even if as a landlord they went far and above their obligations to the tenant and they had a perfect track record elsewhere. It is still an offence, and the only leniency would be in the amount of award.

Wanderingpomm

So can you Sue them for damages? It sounds like the place was a state, they are taking you to court for 3 days unprotected and so you should claim against them for the burn, cleaning gardening etc. If you have it all documented then that might be the way forward to mitagate your losses 

MaryNB

Wanderingpomm said:

So can you Sue them for damages? It sounds like the place was a state, they are taking you to court for 3 days unprotected and so you should claim against them for the burn, cleaning gardening etc. If you have it all documented then that might be the way forward to mitagate your losses 

A year and three days.

lookstraightahead

solidpro said:

lookstraightahead said:

I wonder if all of this has come about because they made a mistake with a burn mark? In the same way as you have made a mistake with the deposit scheme.
i suppose they feel they have nothing to lose. I say this because years ago we were charged for a mark on the curtains and although it wasn't much, I felt very disgruntled as we had looked after the property and the landlord (or agent) was obviously trying to get the cost of the fees back. 

I suspect so. They feel they met their obligations when they didn't. Lightbulbs not replaced, grease all over the ground floor from not using the extractor fan, unkept garden (not touched in over a year), not replacing water softener - and this damage. This is also very much detailed in an inventory and tenancy agreement, so if that's what's disputed then the DPS scheme is there to arbitrate. 

I suspect they never read their tenancy agreement or the inventory they signed and simply called up the DPS company who blurted out 'unprotected' and 'compensation' which would 'put right' their perceived wrongs - many of which we overlooked.

However this isn't about damage to property anymore, it's about being unprotected. I am going to argue that we both initially protected the deposit and the DPS company agree that we have adhered to their scheme which means the tenant IS protected today and should use them for mediation. Trying to frame us as a 'bad landlord' will be met with a lot of contrary evidence.

I've read s213 and s214 a few times. I'm no lawyer but it seems the two elements in which a case can be brought is if the deposit wasn't initially protected or our use of DPS didn't adhere to the provider's rules. I agree there was a period of unprotection in the middle. However we re-protected it WITHIN the rules so that the tenant was not affected in any way, and when it was actually necessary - i.e. when moving out.

All this damage they did - did you not do regular checks? Surely you would have informed them about the state of the garden at least? 
I agree it's not now about damage, it's more about a learning curve.