TDS Questions

tbs624

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

I think you may be missing the point.

I was picking up a specific point that a previous poster had made - the clue is that my post actually started with that point as a direct quote. This may be a different point to the one you want to discuss, but if you'd prefer a monologue then maybe you should take up blogging elsewhere and disable the "comments welcome" switch on it . Ho hum......

Anyway:

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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

Clearly some aren't and others mention it as if it's a valid reason for non compliance.

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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

If all LLs/LAs complied with the requirements in the first place, there would be no opportunity/necessity for them to be "snitched on", surely? No doubt you'd happily "snitch" on all sorts of other digressions by other people, but of course you'd personally turn down a Crimestoppers reward, for example, for doing so.

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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.

I'd agree with you that HMRC is probably loving this new source of information ( and I have mentioned this above, and in previous posts in other threads) but if LLs do what is required of them regarding tenancy deposits, there is no opportunity for a Tenant to gain this personal pecuniary benefit that you find so galling.

I can't work you out CM: in some of your posts you trounce others for their perceived misdemeanours against their employers/their Lls etc and now you seem to be proposing that LLs should be able to keep their business dealings entirely to themselves, without the HMRC et al using all manner of methods to ensure registration of rental income for tax purposes?

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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

- and all LLs/LAs should have been more forthcoming with appropriate and rigorous self-regulation. There was a clear imbalance of power when it came to tenants deposits, and it's apparent that there still is.

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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.

As you're simply guessing, I can't be bothered to link you to the reports on these issues.As a LL you should be aware of them anyway, if you take what you do seriously.

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

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.

I think those who are Tenants and have read many of your posts will be only too happy that you will never be their LL, and that they will instead be dealing with other decent LLs who do play by the rules.:D

silvercar

tbs624 wrote: »

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 .

Some tenants have made a good profit out of the system by moving in their latest boyfriend in breach of the tenancy and the benefit rules. The landlord is left with a clawback of the rent for something the tenant has secretly done, the tenant walking away (in the arms of her latest) having not paid rent for a year.

tbs624

silvercar wrote: »

Some tenants have made a good profit out of the system by moving in their latest boyfriend in breach of the tenancy and the benefit rules. The landlord is left with a clawback of the rent for something the tenant has secretly done, the tenant walking away (in the arms of her latest) having not paid rent for a year.

....and if you look at the first few words of my post, ie. the one that you quoted....you 'll read the words

"Clutton I agree with you where a LL genuinely has no knowledge of the fraudulent behaviour of a tenant......."

Just as there are clearly tenants who commit HB fraud without the LL's knowledge, it has to be recognised that in some cases the fraud is committed with the LL's collusion and in yet other cases, its the LL him/herself who is at fault. It's pretty obvious that in some cases clawing the benefit back from the LL is appropriate, and in others it is not. I view the fact that it can be clawed back as being intended as a deterrent to those LLs who might consider being party to any fraudulent claim, not that it is fair to penalise LLs who are unaware of what their Tenant may be up to.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

tbs624 wrote: »

I was picking up a specific point that a previous poster had made - the clue is that my post actually started with that point as a direct quote. This may be a different point to the one you want to discuss, but if you'd prefer a monologue then maybe you should take up blogging elsewhere and disable the "comments welcome" switch on it . Ho hum......

Anyway:
Clearly some aren't and others mention it as if it's a valid reason for non compliance.


If all LLs/LAs complied with the requirements in the first place, there would be no opportunity/necessity for them to be "snitched on", surely? No doubt you'd happily "snitch" on all sorts of other digressions by other people, but of course you'd personally turn down a Crimestoppers reward, for example, for doing so.

I'd agree with you that HMRC is probably loving this new source of information ( and I have mentioned this above, and in previous posts in other threads) but if LLs do what is required of them regarding tenancy deposits, there is no opportunity for a Tenant to gain this personal pecuniary benefit that you find so galling.

I can't work you out CM: in some of your posts you trounce others for their perceived misdemeanours against their employers/their Lls etc and now you seem to be proposing that LLs should be able to keep their business dealings entirely to themselves, without the HMRC et al using all manner of methods to ensure registration of rental income for tax purposes?

- and all LLs/LAs should have been more forthcoming with appropriate and rigorous self-regulation. There was a clear imbalance of power when it came to tenants deposits, and it's apparent that there still is.

As you're simply guessing, I can't be bothered to link you to the reports on these issues.As a LL you should be aware of them anyway, if you take what you do seriously.

I think those who are Tenants and have read many of your posts will be only too happy that you will never be their LL, and that they will instead be dealing with other decent LLs who do play by the rules.:D

I was going to say that you were doing quite well until the last bit., but in reality you weren't.



I think a tenant happy for now 8 years with absolutely no conflict says something. Unfortunately you aren't qualified to comment on my conduct as a LL as this comments shows.

I believe in something that is long forgotten in the UK , fair play - you don't rip someone off because statute (for it's own perverse reasons in this case) allows it.

prudryden

Is this still going on? The OP said she only suspected. Slander and vexatious litigation sometimes must be paid for as well.

SteveyLomas

Mainwaring, I don't understand your fervour to allow landlord's to continue not having to account for what they do with the deposits. Well in fact I know exactly why, because this legislation has clearly had to alter the way you operate as a landlord. Slightly remiss with declaring your income to the revenue perhaps? Missing your nice little earner from trousering your tenant's deposits at the end of their stay? Mind you, there is a certain determination to circumvent this legislation by you - I wonder why that might be? Perhaps your sense of fair play doesn't extent to paying the tax you owe or returning money to your tenants when they have done nothing wrong.

As you say you are looking forward to the OP taking the brunt of what you deem to be their immoral actions, I'm looking forward to a court thrashing your three months rent up front, seeing it as the deposit it is and handing the tenants 9 months rent as a fine.

I think generally tenants are comfortably in the best place to enforce this kind of judgement. They are the ones who are exposed to the downside of the deposit not being registered. Otherwise the only way rogue landlords would be brought into line would be by people performing their civic duty. Within a year every landlord will be automatically and instantly placing their deposits with a protection sheme when they hear of the fines being dished out. Also, with luck, all the BTLers will actually be paying tax on their income like everyone else.

tbs624

prudryden wrote: »

Is this still going on? The OP said she only suspected. Slander and vexatious litigation sometimes must be paid for as well.

Clarify for me Pru - is this a link to another thread or have I missed something in this one?

prudryden

tbs624 wrote: »

Clarify for me Pru - is this a link to another thread or have I missed something in this one?

You can erase my comments - thinking of something else.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

SteveyLomas wrote: »

Mainwaring, I don't understand your fervour to allow landlord's to continue not having to account for what they do with the deposits. Well in fact I know exactly why, because this legislation has clearly had to alter the way you operate as a landlord. Slightly remiss with declaring your income to the revenue perhaps? Missing your nice little earner from trousering your tenant's deposits at the end of their stay? Mind you, there is a certain determination to circumvent this legislation by you - I wonder why that might be? Perhaps your sense of fair play doesn't extent to paying the tax you owe or returning money to your tenants when they have done nothing wrong.

As you say you are looking forward to the OP taking the brunt of what you deem to be their immoral actions, I'm looking forward to a court thrashing your three months rent up front, seeing it as the deposit it is and handing the tenants 9 months rent as a fine.

I think generally tenants are comfortably in the best place to enforce this kind of judgement. They are the ones who are exposed to the downside of the deposit not being registered. Otherwise the only way rogue landlords would be brought into line would be by people performing their civic duty. Within a year every landlord will be automatically and instantly placing their deposits with a protection sheme when they hear of the fines being dished out. Also, with luck, all the BTLers will actually be paying tax on their income like everyone else.

Try and keep up stevey.

I have had one set of tenants for 8 years. I don't trouser deposit, and never have done out of 10 sets of tenants.

Civic duty? is that what you call it? why does the tenant end up with the dough then and not the scheme????

Neither of my tenants are protected Stevey, and there is nothing you can do about it - and there is no need for it to be. Had you considered that it might actually back scuttle tenant's too being registered with their name on a register? No, I don't suppose you did.

I guess you are another vinegar t1tted tenant. Well maybe if you save long and hard enough, not only can you by yourself somewhere to live, but you can buy somewhere to rent out. Good luck in whatever you choose to do.