Rent Deposit not protected in 30 days

martindow

jj_43 said:

It might not work out that way. If the deposit is protected late, you can choose to go to court. There is no fantasy bargaining here. If the landlord got the hint, they may choose not to overlook any damage to the property, and claim on your deposit. It would be up to you to go to court for compensation, you would need to give the court reasons why (such as it was protected 10 days late), the landlord could state it was protected eventually (blame the agent probably) and give you £50, so what do you want to gain from the process exactly? The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

grumiofoundation

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

It might not work out that way. If the deposit is protected late, you can choose to go to court. There is no fantasy bargaining here. If the landlord got the hint, they may choose not to overlook any damage to the property, and claim on your deposit. It would be up to you to go to court for compensation, you would need to give the court reasons why (such as it was protected 10 days late), the landlord could state it was protected eventually (blame the agent probably) and give you £50, so what do you want to gain from the process exactly? The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

No it’s not correct. No idea what the poster you have quoted is trying to say, most likely they have not understood the deposit protection penalty (assuming they have tried to understand rather than just posting their opinion).  As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty. This is separate to any deposit deductions. 

MobileSaver

grumiofoundation said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty.

Is that 100% definite? I would have thought that "10 days late" would come under the De Minimis conventions since the law breaking is so minor and had literally zero impact on the tenant.

grumiofoundation

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty.

Is that 100% definite? I would have thought that "10 days late" would come under the De Minimis conventions since the law breaking is so minor and had literally zero impact on the tenant.

Have you read the law? 

To me is pretty clear - 30 days. 

The award is a penalty, not compensation, therefore tenant doesn’t need to have suffered. 

jj_43

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

It might not work out that way. If the deposit is protected late, you can choose to go to court. There is no fantasy bargaining here. If the landlord got the hint, they may choose not to overlook any damage to the property, and claim on your deposit. It would be up to you to go to court for compensation, you would need to give the court reasons why (such as it was protected 10 days late), the landlord could state it was protected eventually (blame the agent probably) and give you £50, so what do you want to gain from the process exactly? The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

Yes, the written law and guidance is not flexible enough for individual circumstances. The intention of the act was to ensure that deposits were protected, not to create a set of rules that give windfall payment to tenants for arbitrary reasons.

In this instance the deposit was protected late. In court it may be a simple ask of the landlord why this was so. The landlord may response, my agent was late in protecting the deposit and as soon as I knew I ensured it was protected. 
The tenant will be asked, what harm did you face? or did you contact the landlord about the protection, if ever?
What action did the tenant take regarding the protection, if any?

MobileSaver

grumiofoundation said:

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty.

Is that 100% definite? I would have thought that "10 days late" would come under the De Minimis conventions since the law breaking is so minor and had literally zero impact on the tenant.

Have you read the law? To me is pretty clear - 30 days.

To the best of my knowledge De Minimis applies to all laws and translated means "the law does not concern itself with trifles."

It's the same convention that ensures thousands of motorists don't end up in court for travelling at 33mph when the law categorically states they must not travel faster than 30mph.

I think @jj_43 is spot on and if this ever got to court it would be quickly thrown out.

grumiofoundation

jj_43 said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

It might not work out that way. If the deposit is protected late, you can choose to go to court. There is no fantasy bargaining here. If the landlord got the hint, they may choose not to overlook any damage to the property, and claim on your deposit. It would be up to you to go to court for compensation, you would need to give the court reasons why (such as it was protected 10 days late), the landlord could state it was protected eventually (blame the agent probably) and give you £50, so what do you want to gain from the process exactly? The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

Yes, the written law and guidance is not flexible enough for individual circumstances. The intention of the act was to ensure that deposits were protected, not to create a set of rules that give windfall payment to tenants for arbitrary reasons.

In this instance the deposit was protected late. In court it may be a simple ask of the landlord why this was so. The landlord may response, my agent was late in protecting the deposit and as soon as I knew I ensured it was protected. 
The tenant will be asked, what harm did you face? or did you contact the landlord about the protection, if ever?
What action did the tenant take regarding the protection, if any?

Have you actually read the law? Altough  from the sound of it  you were involved in writing it since you I know the exact intention of it!!!

The judge has to pay 1x deposit as penalty. The tenant doesn’t need to face “ harm” I don’t believe the judge needs to ask any of those questions in this case - of course unless you have evidence otherwise? 

If the (landlorda) agent protected late the landlord would need to pay- the landlord can then take the agent to Court, nothing to do with the tenant. 

it’s not the tenants responsibility to get e landlord to follow the law - to get the deposit protected.  

[Deleted User]

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty.

Is that 100% definite? I would have thought that "10 days late" would come under the De Minimis conventions since the law breaking is so minor and had literally zero impact on the tenant.

Have you read the law? To me is pretty clear - 30 days.

To the best of my knowledge De Minimis applies to all laws and translated means "the law does not concern itself with trifles."

The problem here is that the law literally does concern itself with this 'trifle', 30 days, and the penalty is stated to be between 1 and 3 times. A literal interpretation is the first port of call when it comes to the law.

grumiofoundation

[Deleted User] said:

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

MobileSaver said:

grumiofoundation said:

martindow said:

jj_43 said:

The court system is quite equitable, so would not recognise your claim unless you gave good reasons for it.

Is this correct?  The deposit was not protected in accordance with act so the tenant can claim 1 to 3 times the deposit.  The judge is likely to go for something at the lower end as it was eventually protected, so it would be at least the deposit's value ie a lot more than £50.

As you say the judge would have to award 1-3 times (probably nearer 1x in this case) penalty.

Is that 100% definite? I would have thought that "10 days late" would come under the De Minimis conventions since the law breaking is so minor and had literally zero impact on the tenant.

Have you read the law? To me is pretty clear - 30 days.

To the best of my knowledge De Minimis applies to all laws and translated means "the law does not concern itself with trifles."

The problem here is that the law literally does concern itself with this 'trifle', 30 days, and the penalty is stated to be between 1 and 3 times. A literal interpretation is the first port of call when it comes to the law.

Wait but 2 people on the internet, who have probably not read the actual law, think differently. 

The fact they can't see the difference between the situation whereby someone is not given a speeding ticket due to inaccuracies of speed guns and a situation where the date a deposit was protected can be proved to the day is no reason to doubt their knowledge on the subject. 

Mr.Generous

As a landlord and a TDS member I can say that bonding a depoisit takes about 5 minutes, but does the law say the landlord must bond the deposit within 30 days of receiving it - or within 30 days of the tenant paying it?

Where I'm going here is that the tenant very likely paid the agent the deposit, I'm just wondering if the agent held it for a couple of weeks and the landlord did bond it in less than 30 days of getting the money himself, probably not realising that in law (I would expect) the landlord and his agent count as the same thing.