Rent Deposit not protected in 30 days

SuseOrm

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Gycraig

SuseOrm said:

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Why is court best avoided it’s literally “he didn’t protect my deposit on time how much are you gonna make him pay me” 

nyermen

SuseOrm said:

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Although in this case, the wording in law is clearer I believe.  While many help sites state it may be paid, the actual legislation is here isnt it?  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4

"The court must.. order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money [not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than ] three times the amount of the deposit"

"Must" is a pretty clear instruction to the court?

grumiofoundation

SuseOrm said:

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Even if that is the case in most cases, of course accepting that all judges are therefore unable to uphold the requirements and duties of their role if you read the law in question you would see, as posted above, use of the word must.

Now even if judges are morally flaky as you seem to think, they can read. 

grumiofoundation

Mr.Generous said:

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.

As a landlord you presumably read the law and therefore came across this line

within the period of days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.

An agent is landlord's representative, as you say will be one and the same. I would expect/hope (not a landlord so don't know) that there would be a clause in landlord-agent contract that would mean agent would be liable for lossses landlord suffered due to their incompetence (e.g. if landlord had to pay penalty because agent protected late). 

grumiofoundation

nyermen said:

SuseOrm said:

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Although in this case, the wording in law is clearer I believe.  While many help sites state it may be paid, the actual legislation is here isnt it?  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4

"The court must.. order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money [not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than ] three times the amount of the deposit"

"Must" is a pretty clear instruction to the court?

Nice of you to post the link. Maybe people will read it before posting now? 

SuseOrm

grumiofoundation said:

SuseOrm said:

Whenever one goes to court one is literally reliant on which side of bad the judge got out of as to what the outcome will be and often it is not as one might expect.  Court is always best avoided 

Even if that is the case in most cases, of course accepting that all judges are therefore unable to uphold the requirements and duties of their role if you read the law in question you would see, as posted above, use of the word must.

Now even if judges are morally flaky as you seem to think, they can read. 

A when you say they can read you to be surprised as to how their comprehension is applied. 

B i’m not suggesting they’re morally flaky but they are rarely held to account even with extremely questionable decision-making hence one can literally never predict exactly how these things will go.