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

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

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

You can't take out of context the parts of the law just to suit your own point of view, that's why I posted all the appropriate parts.

e.g.

(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.

213(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

but of particular note not

213(6)(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.

But I'm not going to argue with you. I have posted the law as written, and a link to a company that specialises in property law, maintained by Gary Webber, a practising barrister for 22 years specialising in property law. You are of course, free to come to your own conclusions.

Premier_2

Premier wrote: »

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.

Forgot to also mention, any notice given under S.21 wouldn't be upheld if the tenancy deposit wasn't correctly protected.

RabbitMad

K60sav - you can't be evicted until the deposit has been protected as all notice served before it has been protected is void. even then the LL would need to issue you notice of 2 months, which you could ignore and wait for a court order evicting you -but you'd need to get specialist advice on this.

So you should write asking for the details of the how the deposit is protected. if you don't get a reply you should write to the 3 schemes enquiring whether your deposit has been protected. once you have a response from each scheme you can start court action for your deposit to be protected or returned and 3x the deposit amount paid to you.

(you don't have to prove that the deposit hasn't been protected as the court are supposed to decide whether the LL has complied but if I was bringing this court case I'd want to be sure of my facts and would want the evidence that the deposit hasn't been protected so that the judge can make this decision rather than find for the LL)

pippamannequin

Thankyou for the replies, ive read through and think :rolleyes: i understand everything, well, to a point

It is a tad confusing but as I feel so unnerved about my deposit will seek to ask the court to deal with it, however, i think im better off waiting until i know im ready to move as i have two teenage children and dont want to find myself homeless. It's a huge concern of mine that asking for my deposit to be protected could lead to my tenancy being cut short

Edit: just seen the last post: ok thankyou RabbitMad, I will write to the 3 schemes, (when i have found who to write to) Im not happy asking again about my deposit, i really have asked them enough now and they did have the request in writing at the beginning of my tenancy, so I will write to the schemes and find out if theyve had it protected and then take it from there. Many thanks.

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

You can't take out of context the parts of the law just to suit your own point of view, that's why I posted all the appropriate parts.

I simply quoted that smaller portion to be succinct - there is no point in repeatedly quoting large portions of text - everyone can read it the first time in your post.



At the risk of selectively quoting again, I believe this is the paragraph in question...

(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.

You are saying if section 213(6)(a) has been complied with (ie the prescribed information given - but not necessarily within 14 days) then the penalty does not apply.. but this does not consider the first part of the sentance ie "is satisfied that those requirements have not"
I think this is poorly drafted as it is not clear what "those requirements" refer to.

At first it seems to be referring to the requirements of the previous clause 214(1) but that already includes 213((6)(a) so why repeat it?
Does it instead refer to the requirements of Sections 3 + 4?? (ie pay back the deposit + 3x penalty before the hearing and then no order is made)

I'd be interested to hear what your interpretation of this is.

Premier wrote: »

But I'm not going to argue with you. I have posted the law as written, and a link to a company that specialises in property law, maintained by Gary Webber, a practising barrister for 22 years specialising in property law. You are of course, free to come to your own conclusions.

This is a new law and there have been relatively few cases, mostly unreported. If anyone is thinking of claiming or defending the 3x deposit rule it's a good idea to rehearse the arguments before going to court. The interpretation of someone with experience in property law is a welcome addition, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Different judges will interpret the law in different ways - there is no right or wrong answer, any lawyer will tell you that!

My view is if the 14 day rule isn't upheld by the law then there is nothing to stop a landlord from not protecting the deposit until the day before the hearing - that surely goes against the intended purpose of the legislation.

pippamannequin

One last thing (sorry) my landlords are two brothers and i pay the rent directly into their joint account, but, i deal with 'problems' through the mother who i guess acts as the agent so to speak and on my tenancy agreement it is signed by her and has a ''blah blah lettings'' name and her address. I have asked all 3 for receipt of my deposit though, and the mother is the one who had the letter. Who is responsible? as i pay my rent directly into the bank of the two sons

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

...At the risk of selectively quoting again, I believe this is the paragraph in question...

You forgot to highlight this part

(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.

moneysavinmonkey wrote:

...My view is if the 14 day rule isn't upheld by the law then there is nothing to stop a landlord from not protecting the deposit until the day before the hearing - that surely goes against the intended purpose of the legislation...

That arguement could be applied to many laws - what's the point of them if you need to go to court to enforce them.

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

you forgot to highlight this part

so your interpretation is that "those requirements" refers to the grounds of the applicantion for a court order:
ie 214 (a) + (b)

that could be valid but I would argue that if that was the intention of the legislation why is there a second part of the sentence "or section 2136(a)" ??as this is already covered in section 214(a) ??
It is not usual for legislation to be drafted with redundant portions.

Premier wrote: »

That arguement could be applied to many laws - what's the point of them if you need to go to court to enforce them.

The point is that when you have to go to court to enforce a point of law, there is some penalty for the person who has not complied with the law. There has to be some disincentive to break to the law, even if people think they will get away with it.

If you interpret the law in the way you suggest then the law is saying it is fine to break the law, and there is no penalty for doing this.
I can't think of many laws for which there is no penalty in breaking them?

You have summarised my point exactly - what is the point of a law that you have to go to court to enforce!! I'm sure a judge would not like to rule that a law is pointless.

clutton_2

whether a LL uses an agent or not, in law it is the LL who is responsible for the legality of the tenancy - so i would sue both brothers together

pippamannequin

ok thankyou, appreciate your help guys