TDS Questions

teeni

SquatNow wrote: »

If you're going to be a landlord you should make sure you KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING. If you don't understand the laws you should employ someone who does. If you don't then you should expect to get punished harshly.

If someone who had never driven before got in a car, drove it through a red light and caused a crash, the book would be thrown at them. The fact that they didn't know the red light meant stop so it wasn't their fault would NOT be a defence.



Whether it's their main job or a sideline, If I was running a business with a turnover of hundreds if not thousands of pounds a month I'de make sure I knew what I was doing.

If you haven't got time to do it properly, then don't become a landlord.

Too many people see BTL as a get-rich-quick scheme which requires no effort, instead of what it is... a massive responsibility which if done badly can lead to huge fines and possibly prison sentences.

I dont always agree with you Squat now but in this I do if you choose to be a landlord find out your responsibilities BEFORE you buy the property. I have long thought that there should be conpulsory training and somesort of certificate that ll' s should have to hold before they can rent out properties to show they are aware of their responsibilities.

Bungarm2001

I agree with both teeni and squatnow.

A LL, no matter how s/he became one should familiarise themselves FULLY with all the relevant legislation, always, and preferably well before actually letting a property out....

BUT as a quick trawl around the LL websites and this forum in particular proves, there are many out there who just haven't got a clue, never have and never will despite the pros efforts to educate and inform.

Having said that, I will still say that throwing the book in that way at a (possibly) very inexperienced LL is a bit harsh, particularly as it seems the said LL has made efforts to put things right albeit belatedly.

teeni

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

I agree with both teeni and squatnow.

A LL, no matter how s/he became one should familiarise themselves FULLY with all the relevant legislation, always, and preferably well before actually letting a property out....

BUT as a quick trawl around the LL websites and this forum in particular proves, there are many out there who just haven't got a clue, never have and never will despite the pros efforts to educate and inform.

Having said that, I will still say that throwing the book in that way at a (possibly) very inexperienced LL is a bit harsh, particularly as it seems the said LL has made efforts to put things right albeit belatedly.

I agree it is harsh, but my job is to tell clients their legal position and then carry out their instructions, if I didn't then when legal services commission audit my files my company would be hauled over the coals could even lose their contract.

Notlob

Teeni,

I think we all agree that the legislation is poorly drafted and I realised early on that case law will need to cross T's and dot I's.

I am though surprised at the ruling and suspect that this one case will not be the definitive test case.

Can I refer you to section 214 (2)(a) - is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit

Section 213(6)(a) states - in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect.

To me, I would interpret that as long as the Prescribed Info has been issued prior to the case going to court, albeit after 14 days of deposit receipt, it will protect the LL from the fine.

Notlob

Captain_Mainwaring_2

teeni wrote: »

I will deal with your second question first, i have never implied that I am a laywer only that I am a legal advisor speciallising in Housing/homeless law. This is a fact as is my participation in assisting clients in court on a regular basis under the legal help scheme.

secondly my reading of the o/p question was whether she had the right to apply to court and whether the landlord could be fined even if he now belatedly protected the deposit. in stankova v glastonbury, the landlord had belatedly put the deposit in a scheme and the judgement was still made against him and an order for costs made, whether the ll has paid this is not at this stage relevant , the fact is the court made the order, and whilst i am sure that there will be challenges, as i have stated i am now finding in the light of this ruling ll who i am dealing with are being advised by their solicitors to pay up to avoid court costs.
H/a 2004 states that
(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.

whilst the return of the deposit or the requirement to put the deposit in a scheme appears to be up to the court s214 sub section 4 clearly states that the judge MUST order an award of 3 times the deposit.

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

Given everything above i was genuinely interested in the thoughts of your friend who is a circuit judge as i am not in the position to socialize with judges to discuss this informally. I did not expect to have my professional integrity questioned for asking a question.

I didn't say you did imply that you were a lawyer, I simply asked you, and what professional integrity did I call into doubt?

A number of other cases have been brought up and in these cases where the LL is clearly deficient then go for it - the LL needs to be taught a lesson, but in the case the OP is clearly a petty little person who I sincerely hope will reap what they sow if they choose to go ahead with this action.

The whole of the deposit legislation is poorly drafted and in places looks like it was written by a child. Why on earth should any fine levied go to the tenant? surely it should go into the TDS fund?

More importantly it is hoped that landlords will realise just how open the register is for UK tax authorities to search.

I fully agree that legislation should be in place to ensure fair play on both sides but this scheme just encourages little worms to come out of the woodwork to chase after ambulances.

The judgement will ensure that many landlords have a nominal deposit of £1 with an "ready to re-let" clause placed in the AST and an extra month rent in lieu of deposit.

Consign it to the same bin as the HIP.

owitemisermusa

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

...

Why on earth should any fine levied go to the tenant? surely it should go into the TDS fund?

...

I cannot agree more! It is very, very open to abuse IMHO.

Certainly an inducement to to misuse the act.

Notlob

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Why on earth should any fine levied go to the tenant? surely it should go into the TDS fund?
quote]

What better way to legislate against non compliance than to get the tenant to initiate court proceedings rather than complain to the OFT, who are probably over burdened

Put it another way, passing the buck!

Captain_Mainwaring_2

owitemisermusa wrote: »

I cannot agree more! It is very, very open to abuse IMHO.

Certainly an inducement to to misuse the act.

That's what annoys me so, everything is so unbalanced - where is the provision in this rubbish for the landlord tobe awarded not only damages but be awarded a "fine" too for dealing with a cr4p tenant?

I'd wondered what the real reason for the Act was, but it is clear it is nothing to do with being fair, but to allow HMCR access to tax info, the "fine" payable to the tenant again encourages the tenant to be an informant for the tax inspector.

prudryden

Notlob wrote: »

Incorrect, The responsibility is solely with the LL to protect deposits. The landlord will have to sue the agent for failing to carry out their duties.

Housing Act 2004
Section 212

(9) In this Chapter—
(a) references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies, and

It seems the Housing Act refers to the term Landlord as also meaning an agent - very gray area here. If this is the case, then whoever took the deposit has the responsibility of protecting it in a scheme and therefore suffers the liability if fails to do this. Definitely open to an interesting argument - one in which a third party could rule as they see fit.

prudryden

teeni wrote: »

I will deal with your second question first, i have never implied that I am a laywer only that I am a legal advisor speciallising in Housing/homeless law. This is a fact as is my participation in assisting clients in court on a regular basis under the legal help scheme.

secondly my reading of the o/p question was whether she had the right to apply to court and whether the landlord could be fined even if he now belatedly protected the deposit. in stankova v glastonbury, the landlord had belatedly put the deposit in a scheme and the judgement was still made against him and an order for costs made, whether the ll has paid this is not at this stage relevant , the fact is the court made the order, and whilst i am sure that there will be challenges, as i have stated i am now finding in the light of this ruling ll who i am dealing with are being advised by their solicitors to pay up to avoid court costs.
H/a 2004 states that
(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.

whilst the return of the deposit or the requirement to put the deposit in a scheme appears to be up to the court s214 sub section 4 clearly states that the judge MUST order an award of 3 times the deposit.

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

Given everything above i was genuinely interested in the thoughts of your friend who is a circuit judge as i am not in the position to socialize with judges to discuss this informally. I did not expect to have my professional integrity questioned for asking a question.

T - Interested in your interpretation here. What do you think?

(9) In this Chapter—
(a) references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies, and