Law regarding statutory periodic and deposit protection

solidpro

greatcrested said:

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....

I've read the S213 and S213 many many times. The questions was 'where' in s213 and/or s214 does it say there may not ever be a gap?

So many people saying what they think. This isn't about what you think or what is your opinion, this is about a penalty for breaking a rule, specifically in s213 and s214. Where is the rule?

solidpro

Robbo66 said:

 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.

This is currently the plan. 

greatcrested

solidpro said:

greatcrested said:

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....

I've read the S213 and S213 many many times. The questions was 'where' in s213 and/or s214 does it say there may not ever be a gap?

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....

Robbo66

solidpro said:

Robbo66 said:

 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.

This is currently the plan. The solicitor is simply saying they were not protected and the tenants have no legal right to dispute. We have written evidence that is it protected and they have a legal right to dispute the £250.

If the solicitor wants to argue about the mistake - the gap, then maybe they're reading this and they will do so, but can anyone here, rather than simply mention s213 and s214 for the umpeenth time, tell me where they would have a case?

They have a case because the deposit was protected then it wasn't and then you protected £250 a year later following the lapse. Forget S213, S214 and look at it more simplistically, the law is as stated by Greatcrested all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy, you didn't comply with that. But as I previously stated I believe a judge will only award 1x as this would be seen as a minor breach

solidpro

greatcrested said:

solidpro said:

greatcrested said:

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....

I've read the S213 and S213 many many times. The questions was 'where' in s213 and/or s214 does it say there may not ever be a gap?

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....

I have dealt with it in accordance with the scheme. I have a certificate and an email to prove it and they confirm the deposit is protected.
This isn't what I was asking. Where does it mention a gap?

solidpro

Robbo66 said:

They have a case because the deposit was protected then it wasn't and then you protected £250 a year later following the lapse. Forget S213, S214 and look at it more simplistically, the law is as stated by Greatcrested all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy, you didn't comply with that. But as I previously stated I believe a judge will only award 1x as this would be seen as a minor breach

Please, I'm not being pedantic but where in the law does it say

greatcrested

solidpro said:

Robbo66 said:

They have a case because the deposit was protected then it wasn't and then you protected £250 a year later following the lapse. Forget S213, S214 and look at it more simplistically, the law is as stated by Greatcrested all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy, you didn't comply with that. But as I previously stated I believe a judge will only award 1x as this would be seen as a minor breach

Please, I'm not being pedantic but where in the law does it say "all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy" 

It does not say that, in those words. It says 'as from'.

If the scheme requires payment, and re-protection, at the end of the fixed term, and the LL does not do this, then the landlord has not "dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.... as from the time when it is received.

Robbo66

solidpro said:

Robbo66 said:

They have a case because the deposit was protected then it wasn't and then you protected £250 a year later following the lapse. Forget S213, S214 and look at it more simplistically, the law is as stated by Greatcrested all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy, you didn't comply with that. But as I previously stated I believe a judge will only award 1x as this would be seen as a minor breach

Please, I'm not being pedantic but where in the law does it say "all deposits to be protected within 30 days of receipt and for the duration of the tenancy" 

But they weren't, you received a deposit at the beginning of the tenancy and protected at the beginning of the fixed term - Yes
12 months later the tenancy went SPT and a new premium was due to cover the deposit protection, you didn't pay it so deposit no longer protected.
12 months on from that tenant vacates yo wanted to deduct £250 realise deposit not protected so so protected £250 that leaves a gap of 12 months where the deposit wasn't protected. The certificated you had only covered the first 12 months and expires unless the registration is updated at which point a new certificate is generated. Just because the deposit is registered with the scheme doesn't mean its protected. You used the Insurance back scheme that lets you hold the deposit so every time there is a change to the tenancy it has to be updated and if a new premium is due you have to pay it to keep the protection.

You are clearly determined not to accept the fact that there was a period of time the deposit was unprotected so the best course of action is to let this go to court, if you win you can come back stick 2 fingers up at everyone and say i told you so but of you lose then accept what ever the Judge says but as I have said I believe he will award a penalty of 1 x deposit.

lookstraightahead

If I had, say, a gardener who promised to trim my lawn weekly, and instead of doing that they just did it at the end of the agreement so it looked the same as it would have had they done it weekly, I might not be very happy about it.

solidpro

Robbo66 said:

12 months later the tenancy went SPT and a new premium was due to cover the deposit protection, you didn't pay it so deposit no longer protected.

Wrong. Many DPS automatically change to SP at the end of the tenancy but for some reason this one doesn't. There is no charge to do this. It's purely administrative.