TDS Questions

teeni

housing benefit pays rent not the deposit so why should it be paid to the council it was never their money in the first place. if you are saying that it will increase level of savings held by the claimant then as long as it is under £6000 then it is not even considered because you can have this sum without any effect on your benefits.

Bond s paid by homeless departments are nothing to do with housing benefit and are often bond guarentees rather than actual cash, in this case there is no deposit to put in a scheme

silvercar

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

What form does this bond take?

A guarantee from the council that they will pay costs of any damage etc. No money changes hands and so no TDS.

I ask, because maybe in the future this bond is the way to go to defeat this ridiculous legislation that is nothing more than a stealth way of collecting information.

Again I ask - surely if the tenant receives a payment that he ordinarily would not have as a result of receiving housing benefit, then surely the "fine" should be returned directly to the council? It's like buying a lottery ticket with stolen money.The tenant would be receving a payment as a result of paying a deposit out of their personal money.

The advantage of the bond is that there is a guarantee that damages will be repaired. How easy it is to get the council to pay out on a bond is debatable. I wouldn't consider it the same as a landlord holding tenant's money.

silvercar

teeni wrote: »

housing benefit pays rent not the deposit so why should it be paid to the council it was never their money in the first place. if you are saying that it will increase level of savings held by the claimant then as long as it is under £6000 then it is not even considered because you can have this sum without any effect on your benefits.

Bond s paid by homeless departments are nothing to do with housing benefit and are often bond guarentees rather than actual cash, in this case there is no deposit to put in a scheme

If a tenant already had £5,000 in savings, the award could tip them over the limit.

teeni

silvercar wrote: »

If a tenant already had £5,000 in savings, the award could tip them over the limit.

Yes it could and is obvously something they have to consider before talking action.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

silvercar wrote: »

The advantage of the bond is that there is a guarantee that damages will be repaired. How easy it is to get the council to pay out on a bond is debatable. I wouldn't consider it the same as a landlord holding tenant's money.

Seems to me that it's time to get the tenant to do the legwork, let them put the money in the bond or into the TDS, and if they don't do it in 14 days, then I'll have 4 times damages.

clutton_2

""How easy it is to get the council to pay out on a bond is debatable. I wouldn't consider it the same as a landlord holding tenant's money.""

i just recently signed a "bond agreement" but only after much tooing and froing and negotiating with the Bond Board - they wanted the "Bond" to only be applicable for the first 6 months of the Agreement !!!!! i explained, as if to a child, that the time a LL wants his deposit is at the end of the agreement - so several emails and phone calls later, i got them to agree to changes in their Bond Agreement - "no one else has complained" they said - as if that makes it acceptable that they produced a useless agreement.

the Arbiter in any dispute at the end of the tenancy is to be a - "council employee" - i wonder how impartial s/he will be ????

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Just thinking about how kak this supposed protection is - one would be financially better off getting drunk and running the tenant over as he walks to court to submit the summons - the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence etc would probably be less than 4 times the damned deposit.

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

if a LL has been receiving HB from a tenant who it then transpires has been fraudulently claiming, the local authority will claw all monies paid FROM THE LANDLORD !!!!! - AND they do it every week in some council or other - never mind that the LL was in no position to KNOW if the tenant was defrauding - it simply works on "LLS have money, HB tenants dont - lets get our money whichever way we can - lets target the LL first"

Clutton I agree with you where a LL genuinely has no knowledge of the fraudulent behaviour of a tenant, but unfortunately it is well documented that some LLs have made a very good profit out of either colluding with some tenants to deliberately defraud the system, or themselves failing to notify the HB office that a particular tenant has in fact moved on, particularly in areas with a high proportion of HMOs and a frequent changeover in short-term lets .

tbs624

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

...please try to remember that not ALL LL'S are actually aware of the rules regarding tenant deposits, particularly those that are 'accidental' LL's and have only the one property. Even some LA'S are still unaware...

If LL/LAs cannot familiarise themselves with the legalities of letting out property then they should quite simply be barred from the property rentals market. There is no excuse.

The tenancy deposit scheme has been discussed ad nauseum on radio, by the LL associations - both local and national, it's been plastered all over the newspapers, there are leaflet campaigns, it's on the internet ( google tenancy deposit & look at the results). You can sign up for free - yes free- email newsletters that deliver reliable LL&T law updates straight to even the doziest/laziest LLs inbox.

IMO the LLs/LAs who don't comply with deposit rules ( or any other LL&T legislation) fall into three distinct camps - those who do know about it but see themselves as too big and important to think it applies to their own dealings with their tenants, those who are absolute crooks, and those who are total and utter amateurs who think that they are buying into an easy way to make a living/provide their additional pension.

The mistake with this legislation IMO was to make it necessary for the Tenant to pursue the non-compliers. It should have been notifiable to a specific local dept, whose job it was to issue straightforward non-compliance fines and send the errant LL/LA on an enforced training course, complete with 200 lines " I must treat tenants fairly and I must not ignore the law"

Yes, I agree with those who view the current scheme registration requirement as also being a way for HMRC to cross-check those who have to date evaded tax on their property income, but the fact is that many tenants are financially disadvantaged and they desperately need the return of their money to enable them to move onto a new home.

Membership of a LL Assoc or Tessa Shepperson's Landlord law website costs you around 75 quid a year and is tax deductible - such membership should be compulsory as a straightforward means of bringing legal necessities to LLs/LAs attention.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

I think you may be missing the point.

I'm pretty sure that there is no disagreement that landlords should be aware of the law.

However how can the tenant be awarded the windfall for snitching out the LL?

It does nothing more than turns tenants into tax inspectors (it's clear that is the root of this scheme), with a pecuniary benefit to be gained personally.

How on earth can this scheme in anycase allow that the "fine" go to a tenant on benefit?

Surely any fine levied should be paid to the scheme, and then tenant should only have to report the possible transgression to the scheme managers - a copy of the AST would be enoug, the TDS people could do the rest.

It needs a few LL's to take a stronghand lead and refuse to sign deposit contracts, but insist on guarantees from either third parties/employers -

Also worth of note - for all the tenants that may unfairly lose some deposit, there are probably 5 times (OK, I'm guessing) as many who lose the deposit justly and then should be paying a penalty.

The minute you encourage the public to police themselves using a financial incentive, the minute you are going to end up with real trouble.

I for one will not be issuing contracts with a deposit clause in the future, not because I don't agree that there should be some control, but because of this sly devious method of policing it.