Law regarding statutory periodic and deposit protection

solidpro

We'll discuss this week and respond. We are not settling.

solidpro

Hannimal said:

The landlord's attitude throughout this thread is exactly why renting in the UK is such a pain. 

Don't worry....

solidpro

lookstraightahead said:

After my headache of reading every minute detail about buying an old property, asking daft questions on here etc, I cannot understand why someone with the huge responsibility of being a landlord thinks their mistake is just acceptable. I understand that it was a mistake, but it is still 'landlord beware' surely? 

It's basically the contradiction 

lookstraightahead

solidpro said:

lookstraightahead said:

After my headache of reading every minute detail about buying an old property, asking daft questions on here etc, I cannot understand why someone with the huge responsibility of being a landlord thinks their mistake is just acceptable. I understand that it was a mistake, but it is still 'landlord beware' surely? 

It's basically the contradiction in terms of being a landlord. 50% of the commenters are hard-nosed business people that give you no slack for not being harsh, charging thousands for cleaning, gardening etc and treating tenants as a commodity to suck every last penny out. The other 50% are tenants who claim they're not just a cash cow and every landlord is a rich property magnate burning £50 notes and letting the walls cave in, whilst charging extortionate amounts of rent. You can't really win.

I can't think of a single private landlord who is a landlord for the greater good of society. I understand that -  nothing wrong with making a living.
however, a business is a business, and if a landlord makes mistakes, you have to put them right/pay the consequences. I think being a landlord is quite scary and is a job in itself.
Going back to the burning accident, it's no different from your tenant giving you every reason under the sun how it happened. They are still having to pay for it (and landlord doesn't have to replace either). 

solidpro

We have an email and a certificate which confirms this protection and will be used in court.

Robbo66

solidpro said:

Ok going back to the actual subject. This is a simple case of a penalty due to breaking the letter of the law. The law says the deposit must be initially protected under a recognised 'scheme' and we must adhere to the scheme.

Lots of people on here are saying a rule (s213 or s214) has been broken by a period (even of 1 day) of unprotection - specifically in the middle of being protected at the start and at the end. Yes it makes sense that a deposit should be protected both at the start and at the end but I cannot find somewhere which actually states there cannot be a gap. Can someone show me the letters of the law saying that, because I can't find them?

The tenant was initially protected. Was 'automatically' unprotected for a period and then reprotected at the end under SP. The DPS company have told the tenant initially they were not protected which has caused this issue. However I have since phoned them and they have said they made a mistake and it is protected under SP and the tenant is welcome to dispute the outstanding £250 for 3 months after they vacated in January.

If we had not initially protected the deposit the tenant would not be now protected. If we had not adhered to the scheme the tenant would not now be protected.

We have an email and a certificate which confirms this protection and will be used in court.

yes the deposit was protected at the beginning of the fixed term however you used an insurance scheme to do this. At the end of that term a renewal premium was due to continue that protection which you didn't pay so the deposit became unprotected. This clearly wasn't intentional but it did happen and should this go to court you will probably have to pay the £250 plus 1 x deposit to the tenant but you can then counter sue for the damages and this would be offset against the tenants claim.

lookstraightahead

I think that at this point you just go to court and let the professionals sort it out. I don't know much about the law, but I do know that reasons around something are very often 'noise' and it is likely to be a tick box exercise. 

pinkshoes

This all seems SO pedantic! The tenants are being very petty in my opinion.

But... the law is the law and I guess they are entitled to do this. But surely the penalty is only against the £250 disputed proportion that should have been re-protected?

And given how much damage you have listed that is beyond fair wear and tear, then I think the £250 sounded rather kind. In reality it sounds like it will cost you far more than that to get everything back to normal.

The ONLY time I have ever threatened a landlord with court was when they tried to charge me £500 for two antique chest of drawers I apparently disposed of. Except there were 3 chest of drawers in my SMALL room which felt more like a furniture store, so I moved one into the living room, and the other was stored in the cupboard under the stairs. 

I wish you good luck. 

Robbo66

pinkshoes said:

This all seems SO pedantic! The tenants are being very petty in my opinion.

But... the law is the law and I guess they are entitled to do this. But surely the penalty is only against the £250 disputed proportion that should have been re-protected?

The penalty would be against the whole deposit that was initially registered. I would be surprised if the judge didn't see this as a minor breach so only 1x, the currently held £250 would have to be returned as well.
I agree tenant is being petty but as you say the law is the law and there isn't room for common sense in todays' world, I personally would have just given the whole deposit back and not made a claim against it once I realised I had breached the deposit registration requirements. The best solution is to register with the deposit with a custodial scheme, these are free and the deposit remains protected even when the fixed term becomes periodic.

greatcrested

solidpro said:

Ok going back to the actual subject. This is a simple case of a penalty due to breaking the letter of the law. The law says the deposit must be initially protected under a recognised 'scheme' and we must adhere to the scheme.

Lots of people on here are saying a rule (s213 or s214) has been broken by a period (even of 1 day) of unprotection - specifically in the middle of being protected at the start and at the end. Yes it makes sense that a deposit should be protected both at the start and at the end but I cannot find somewhere which actually states there cannot be a gap. Can someone show me the letters of the law saying that, because I can't find them?

213  Requirements relating to tenancy deposits

Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.

ie from time of payment and continuing forward....