Law regarding statutory periodic and deposit protection

grumiofoundation

solidpro said:

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.

If the lack of protection was due to DPS error then if you have to pay any penalty would you not be able to reclaim from them? 

However in your earlier posts you say "the deposit protection company said we are liable for the period they were unprotected." which sounds like they are (whether correctly or not) saying you are to blame not them?

greatcrested

I'm looking forward to this going to court and hearing the outcome!

FBaby

Firstly you seem to confused the custodial and insurance type deposit protection scheme. Why did you opt for the former which is much more complex? 

Secondly you say that the deposit was re-activated. To be so, it would have been de-activated at some point and that point was the end of the fixed term, and it was your responsibility to reactivate before the end of the initial tenancy. 

I agree that the law is ludicrous in this instance but that is not an argument that you didn't break the law. You did. You wouldn't have if you used the custodial scheme which is the one most commonly used. 

solidpro

Just a quick update. From what i've learned s213 includes lots of stuff about what the landlord must do with the AST and deposit. In most circumstances with each tenant there is only one deposit, and often only one AST (depending on whether the tenant signs a second AST, which usually carries over the original deposit but via a new protection or if they leave or go on Statutory Periodic, there is also no new deposit paid and only the original AST ever happens).

In summary, the landlord must, as from the time when it is recieved must deal witht the deposit with in accordance with an authorised scheme and the initial requirements of that scheme must be complied with in relation to the deposit within 30 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is recieved.

s214 and s215 are amendments to the 213 Housing Act 2004.

There was no requirement under section 215B Housing Act 2004 for the deposit to have been re-protected or prescribed information to have been provided again - in particular referring to section 215B(f) which applies upon the commencement of a statutory periodic tenancy under section 5(2) Housing Act 1988.

solidpro

FBaby said:

I agree that the law is ludicrous in this instance but that is not an argument that you didn't break the law. You did. You wouldn't have if you used the custodial scheme which is the one most commonly used. 

Nothing did break the law. There was no requirement under section 215B Housing Act 2004 for the deposit to have been re-protected or prescribed information to have been provided again - in particular referring to section 215B(f) which applies upon the commencement of a statutory periodic tenancy under section 5(2) Housing Act 1988.

MobileSaver

solidpro said:

FBaby said:

I agree that the law is ludicrous in this instance but that is not an argument that you didn't break the law. You did.

Nothing did break the law. There was no requirement under section 215B Housing Act 2004 for the deposit to have been re-protected or prescribed information to have been provided again - in particular referring to 215B(f)

I have not read the whole thread but Section 215B(f) would appear to prove the opposite, that you did indeed break the law!

(f) when the new tenancy comes into being, the deposit continues to be held in connection with the new tenancy, in accordance with the same authorised scheme

The phrase "in accordance" means "you follow the rules". So "in accordance with the same authorised scheme" means you should have called the company and put the deposit under a "statutory periodic" as per the rules of the scheme.

You did not do this so you are guilty as charged I am afraid.

theartfullodger

Deposit laws passed by parliament TWICE, second time to give poor downtrodden harassed landlords more time (more than double!) to handle a simple but of admin.

And yet we still have landlords claiming they've not broken the law..  

Sigh!

warwick2001

Ultimately, once this goes to court (which I assume it will), the judge will decide whether they have broken the law or not. Unless anyone on here is a legal expert, you can only give your opinion of this. Which is absolutely fine, and you may believe your opinion is the same as the law. But only judges decide that, in a court of law. 

I also believe, in this case, the OP has come cropper of the law (however stupid the law may be). But that is just my opinion. 

Bring on the Judge!!!

MobileSaver

warwick2001 said:

Unless anyone on here is a legal expert, you can only give your opinion of this. ... But only judges decide that, in a court of law.

Well, yes and no. It goes without saying that everything on MSE is an opinion but even judges only offer opinions and they too can get things wrong which is why we have several layers of appeal in the UK.

warwick2001 said:

Bring on the Judge!!!

The point of a thread like this, where to many people here it is an open and shut case, is to give the OP the opportunity to settle out of court thus reducing the financial impact and their stress levels.

solidpro

MobileSaver said:

I have not read the whole thread but Section 215B(f) would appear to prove the opposite, that you did indeed break the law!

A response from someone who isn't quoting the law and isn't explaining what section of the law supports their view and why. Armchair pundit. Suggest you go back to shouting from the sidelines at a football match.

Can you quote the line in the law supporting your view? I would suggest you read it first. You could start with section 215B(f) which applies upon the commencement of a statutory periodic tenancy under section 5(2) Housing Act 1988.