Has anybody been awarded 3x their deposit because of TDS?

SteveyLomas

If BTLers are dodging paying tax, why shouldn't the government go after them? They are cheating everyone who does pay what they owe in tax.

RabbitMad

Get with the program stevey. Those BTLers borrowed 110% of the house price, on interest only and have been subsidising their tenants but thats OK cos house prices only ever go up.

Quite agree that everybody should pay their fair share of tax, I just think this law is a poor solution that neither adaquately protects tenants deposits or forces landlords to pay any tax they owe.

However lets get this tread back on track and await the results of some more cases. (Over on the consumer forums - about a month ago - a person had the LL settle out of court rather than risk the 3 times penalty but it went all the way to the wire before LL conceeded.)

RHemmings

RabbitMad wrote: »

Get with the program stevey. Those BTLers borrowed 110% of the house price, on interest only and have been subsidising their tenants but thats OK cos house prices only ever go up.

Quite agree that everybody should pay their fair share of tax, I just think this law is a poor solution that neither adaquately protects tenants deposits or forces landlords to pay any tax they owe.

What would you suggest is a better solution? What we have now is better than what we had before. Unless you can come up with something better, your criticisms are valueless.

pippamannequin

What exactly is my position regarding my deposit, i moved in in October and paid my deposit and 1 months rent in advance, i was taken of the council housing register at the time and the council contributed towards the deposit, and also wrote to my landlords to say they needed to protect the deposit. Ive asked my landlords a couple of times, most recently about 2 weeks ago, but nothing.
Im in a contract, 3 years, but i have a break clause should i wish to leave, i dont yet, but increasingly feeling like i will do next year. I sense i may have problems.

Premier_2

k60sav wrote: »

What exactly is my position regarding my deposit, i moved in in October and paid my deposit and 1 months rent in advance, i was taken of the council housing register at the time and the council contributed towards the deposit, and also wrote to my landlords to say they needed to protect the deposit. Ive asked my landlords a couple of times, most recently about 2 weeks ago, but nothing.
Im in a contract, 3 years, but i have a break clause should i wish to leave, i dont yet, but increasingly feeling like i will do next year. I sense i may have problems.

Have you put your request in writing? You shouldn't need to because the LL should have provided you with the necessary info, but since they are delinquent, best to give them one final chance. Tell them also that if you don't receive the answer you require, you will take appropriate legal action.

If no response, you'll need to apply to the County court to either have the deposit protected, or refunded.

If by the court hearing date, still neither has occurred, the court will order one or the other to de done and also direct you are given 3 times the value of the deposit as compensation.

pippamannequin

Premier wrote: »

Have you put your request in writing? You shouldn't need to because the LL should have provided you with the necessary info, but since they are delinquent, best to give them one final chance. Tell them also that if you don't receive the answer you require, you will take appropriate legal action.

If no response, you'll need to apply to the County court to either have the deposit protected, or refunded.

If by the court hearing date, still neither has occurred, the court will order one or the other to de done and also direct you are given 3 times the value of the deposit as compensation.

Hi thanks for the quick response, the request was put in writing to them when i moved in, by the council, and given to them by myself and read by me explaining it

I haven't put it in writing since, but did make my request for it again a couple of weeks ago face to face, so am a bit confused as why i still haven't even had so much as a receipt for my deposit (though my tenancy agreement states i paid it)

My biggest concern is i request it in writing and go through the court process to then find myself evicted before i am ready to move :rolleyes:

Premier_2

k60sav wrote: »

...My biggest concern is i request it in writing and go through the court process to then find myself evicted before i am ready to move :rolleyes:

That may happen, assuming it complies with the break clause terms of the TA, but you would still be advised to go ahead as explained because I guess you would want your deposit back if you do get evicted. If the LL hasn't protected it, don't expect he'll return it all out of his own freewill.

Premier_2

Having now had time to read the whole thread, perhaps it would be an opportune point to highlight what the law actually says regarding the subject matter of this thread:

213 Requirements relating to tenancy deposits
(1) 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.
(2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received.
(4) For the purposes of this section “the initial requirements” of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.
(5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,
as may be prescribed.
(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.
(7) No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money.
(8) In subsection (7) “deposit” means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—
(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b) the discharge of any liability of his,
arising under or in connection with the tenancy.
(9) The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary.
(10) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—
(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or
(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.
(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.
(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19


or in plain English:

If a tenant is concerned that his deposit is not protected by a scheme and/or he has not been provided with the prescribed information and/or the scheme administrator does not confirm that their deposit is protected then he can commence proceedings against the landlord under HA 2004, s 214. Although it appears that if, by the time of the hearing, the landlord has complied with the requirement there is no sanction. If the court finds that the landlord is in breach then it must order up to three times the amount of the deposit to be paid to the tenant within 14 days (s 214(4)) as well as ordering the deposit to be paid either into the custodial scheme or to the tenant (s 213(3)).

http://www.propertylawuk.net/residentialdeposits.html

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

Having now had time to read the whole thread, perhaps it would be an opportune point to highlight what the law actually says regarding the subject matter of this thread:


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19


or in plain English:

http://www.propertylawuk.net/residentialdeposits.html

you second quote does not necessarily follow from the first ie the law. It is simply an particular website's interpretation of how they think the courts will view the legislation - from the actual cases that I have read it seems that the judges are taking a more stricter view and treating the 14 day penalty as a strict liability, and later compliance is does not negate the fact the deposit was not protected in accordance with the law.
Links to TDS cases http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/151082-tds-case-outcomes-links.html


Quite right in my view otherwise a landlord does not need to protect a deposit until the tenant takes them to court - which defeats the whole purpose of the legislation.

moneysavinmonkey

From the quote of the Housing Act

(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.


Does not say anything in the law that once 3 a) or b) is done then 4) no longer applies