can I still claim compensation?

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

The LL also only complied with the law on the deposit a good year after being required to do so, and only after the tenant pressed for it (deposit originally paid in two halves), and probably because she realised that a S21 could not be served without it being registered.

Too late for LL now. The deposit had to be registered within 14 days of receiving it or they can't serve a section 21 and any section21 served is illegal.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

""huge number of LA/LLs"

please point me to the research showing this "HUGE" number of LLs who keep deposits

Look on the shelter and CAB websites.

tbs624

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Too late for LL now. The deposit had to be registered within 14 days of receiving it or they can't serve a section 21 and any section21 served is illegal.

Miss MP - do you know whether this one been tested in court yet? The whole issue around what can actually be done/not done if a deposit is not registered within the initial timeframe but is then subsequently registered prior to any court hearing seems to be a very grey one.

clutton_2

there are hundreds of thousands of landlords in the country - what % of them unfairly withold deposits ?

actually i have just found out - there are 1.7 million landlords in this country - so any claims that the majority of landlords keep deposits has to be wishful thinking as far as i am concerned and born out of prejudice and personal previous poor experiences.

Bungarm2001

clutton wrote: »

there are hundreds of thousands of landlords in the country - what % of them unfairly withold deposits ?

Even less %age now since the Tenant Verifying service tied in with insurance guarantees. Tenants are now being asked and agreeing to pay 2 months up front rent in many cases and the LL/LA's not taking damage deposits at all. I can see that idea catching on in a big way over time.

tbs624

:rolleyes: Clutton - please take the part of my post that you quoted within in its contextual paragraph, and try not to be so quick to get in a huff. If you’re not one of the LLs who did behave like that, either side of the deposit legislation, then recognising that thousands of tenants - yes thousands - struggled (and still do) to get their deposits returned does not reflect on you personally.

You say that you are a “professional” landlord and, if that’s the case, then I’d expect you to be familiar with the figures that you’re asking for, and the studies and surveys that preceded the legislation on tenants deposits. (As MissMP said, Shelter can help you , if you need a reminder) My original post specifically use the word “number” of LLs/LAs not percentage, but as a base line one of the key studies showed that around 10 /11 % of tenants had their deposits withheld without being given any reason whatsoever. We can then move up from those who lose all of their deposit , or part of their deposit and have been given a reason ( not necessarily justifiable ), to those who have had them repaid but had to struggle to achieve that repayment and face considerable delays in accessing the funds they needed to move onto their next home. The interest that LLs “earned” (particularly those with a large property portfolio) was rarely, if, ever used to defray any of the costs, or returned to the tenants. ( partially addressed by current legislation)

My understanding is that here are around 700,000 LL in this country and only 15,000 of them are members of any LL organisation: 12,000 letting agents, and only around 1/3 are members of any LA organisation. Bear in mind that those organisations, even when signed up to, are generally self-serving and self-regulating with little benefit to tenants, despite their codes of conduct. The key advantage is that they do try to keep their membership up to date with current legislation, but despite that legislation there are still LLs/LAs who continue to flout the law, courts that will be slow to enforce it, and LL schemes that seek to entirely circumvent the law. It has to be remembered that many tenants are at a distinct economic disadvantage, especially when compared to their LL, and desperately need the prompt return of their deposits to obtain their next home.

You mentioned in a separate thread that troublesome tenants were in fact in the minority , yet waded in with a hearsay post about 8k’s worth of damage, on this thread in which a tenant is asking for help because her LL was late in registering her deposit. Whilst I fully acknowledge that a small proportion of tenants will act in way ranging from the thoughtless to the criminal, I was appalled that as a LL you also chose to endorse a comment made by CM that some tenants should be “strung up” - death penalty for troublesome tenants? :sad:

tbs624

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

Even less %age now since the Tenant Verifying service tied in with insurance guarantees. Tenants are now being asked and agreeing to pay 2 months up front rent in many cases and the LL/LA's not taking damage deposits at all. I can see that idea catching on in a big way over time.

The problem with this one though is that there may be a corresponding number of tenants who seek to withhold their last couple of month's rent to counterbalance things. Just wonder how much sympathy a court would have with a LL seeking remedy for such a breach of contract when it's apparent that the problems arise partly because of a LLs desire to "get around" laws designed to protect tenants?

zebulon

tbs624 wrote: »

The problem with this one though is that there may be a corresponding number of tenants who seek to withhold their last couple of month's rent to counterbalance things.

Actually, considering that it's supposed to be 2 months up front - Tenants would not be withholding the rents - they would just stop paying because they are 2 months in advance... so they would be totally ok ... no?
even though many might no think about it and pay an extra month - which I suppose is what 'bad' LL/LA wants...

clutton_2

tbs.. you say ""as a LL you also chose to endorse a comment made by CM that some tenants should be “strung up” - death penalty for troublesome tenants? :sad:"

please clarify what you mean - i endorsed it ?? - and which thread/post is this "strung up " comment on - that does not sound like anything i would have endorsed/agreed with

""with a hearsay post about 8k’s worth of damage"" - this is not hearsay, he and i have personally costed the repair work needed to restore this property to a lettable condition.

i am fully aware that stories of bad landlords are not aimed at me, but, this forum occasionally becomes hysterically anti landlord - and like all media - a "bad" story gets far more publicity than a "good" story - when did you last find a "I love my landlord" thread on here - or anywhere for that matter ?

i think that the small number of good landlords who do post on here (and, who give tenants who are being abused an EXCELLENT free advice service by the way) are fully entitled to try to maintain the "balance" between the argument that "all landlords are barstewards and all tenants are angels" or vice versa - depending on which side of the fence you are.

i do agree with you that "" Whilst I fully acknowledge that a small proportion of tenants" (AND LANDLORDS - my words) " will act in way ranging from the thoughtless to the criminal"

This forum is not called "Tenants Rights" its called "House Buying Renting and Selling" - so forgive me if my "vested" interest as a good landlord shines thru .....

Bungarm2001

tbs624 wrote: »

The problem with this one though is that there may be a corresponding number of tenants who seek to withhold their last couple of month's rent to counterbalance things. Just wonder how much sympathy a court would have with a LL seeking remedy for such a breach of contract when it's apparent that the problems arise partly because of a LLs desire to "get around" laws designed to protect tenants?

Yes it is controversial and very early days. I'm waiting to see what transpires over the coming months with this one before I'll even consider doing the same.

Having done a straw poll amongst a few of my present tenants, the concensus of opinion there was, once they had thought it thru, they considered it a workable alternative to the present deposit systems.

I don't see it as circumventing the rules, merely an alternative and simpler solution to what is, lets face it, a practice that is still very open to abuse on both sides.