Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Mantle123
    • By Mantle123 17th Aug 18, 11:46 AM
    • 4Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Mantle123
    Deposit Not Secured - No GSC - Potentially Unathorised Tenants
    • #1
    • 17th Aug 18, 11:46 AM
    Deposit Not Secured - No GSC - Potentially Unathorised Tenants 17th Aug 18 at 11:46 AM
    Good Morning everyone,

    Apologies in advance, this is potentially a long winded one for a Friday morning...

    So, Iíve been renting a property since 04/2016, which is the first property Iíve rented, and my partner and I decided weíd like to see whether we could get Hive installed, to control the heating over the winter.
    Whilst looking into the process to get this done, I realised that our boiler had not been serviced since we moved in, 2 and a half years ago.
    I looked into how often this should be done, and itís advised that this is done annually, along with a Gas Safety Certificate (GSC), which legally needs to be checked and renewed at least every 12 months.
    Checking through my documents, the last GSC was provided just before we moved in, in May of 2016.
    This raised my concerns regarding our Landlord, and I had a look through my signed tenancy agreement for his details, and something else caught my eye - We had both signed an agreement which stated that he was going to put my £575 security deposit in a secure government-backed scheme.
    Again I checked through my documents and could find no evidence that this had been done, despite a signed receipt that I had paid the deposit to the Agency.
    I checked online at the 3 Deposit Scheme providers and there was no record of my deposit in any of them.

    On another post on this forum, regarding similar matters, someone had mentioned looking out for other Ďred flagsí following this, one of which was mail still being delivered to our address, addressed to our LL.
    Since we moved in, we have had the occasional letter delivered, which we initially were hand delivering to his house intermittently, and asking him to change the address with whoever was sending these letters.
    After a while, we stopped delivering them and just threw them on a pile when they arrived.
    Upon further inspection, all of these letters are from a mortgage company.
    This leads me to believe that his mortgage company have not given him consent to let the property, and as such would make us unauthorised tenants and invalidate any insurance he might have (The odd letter from insurance companies has arrived addressed to him).

    I sent our LL a letter 3 days ago (signed for, and had confirmation he refined it), asking firstly that he arrange for a GSC to be carried out, and to contact me regarding this within the next 10 days, as well as asking for evidence that my deposit had been submitted into a deposit scheme, and to provide the relevant details of such scheme.
    Yesterday, I received a email from Deposit Protection Service, advising me that my landlord had now set my deposit in a secure scheme, as of 16/08/2018. The scheme that he has now paid the deposit in to is not even the same scheme we agreed to on the signed Tenancy agreement., regardless of the fact itís over two years late.
    Iíve sent another letter (Letter Before Action) to my landlord today, advising him that heís in breach of Sec 213 of the Housing Act, as he failed to secure my deposit within 30 days, and he failed to provide me with the correct information regarding that deposit; stating that it had been deposited in a particular scheme when infact it hadnít.
    Iíve informed him that under the Sec 214 of The Housing Act, of a court is satisfied that he failed to comply with his obligations to me as LL, they will order him to pay up to 3 times my deposit, as well as ordering him to secure my deposit (which has now been done).
    I have also advised him that I am open to reasonable offers to resolve this matter, and that failure to come to an agreement over this would result in me taking further legal action - for which he may be liable for costs.

    So, my question/s (if youíre still with me ) are:
    Firstly, have I done the right thing? Iíve tried to follow advice regarding similar issues on here, and have used the Shelter template letters to send to him.
    Secondly, what should I Ďreasonablyí accept as compensation from him to resolve this, before referring this further and taking this to county court.
    If we do go to county court, would I have a strong case?
    If I donít hear back from him regarding the GSC, am I right in thinking the only action I can take is to report him to HSE?
    We are planning on moving out within the next few months, but does the LL have grounds to issue a S21; is this void until he gets a GSC, or does he even need a S21 if weíre unauthorised tenants?
    Should I inform his mortgage company that heís been letting his property to us, seemingly without their knowledge?
    Is there anything else Iíve forgotten to do?

    Thanks in advance - apologies if these all seem like rookie mistakes, but this was our first time renting and we assumed that the Agent would have made sure the Landlord was fit to rent from.
Page 2
    • Wanderingpomm
    • By Wanderingpomm 18th Aug 18, 12:27 PM
    • 100 Posts
    • 101 Thanks
    Wanderingpomm
    Sorry that's nonsense - the law is clear 1-3x the value of the deposit.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    The law says this:

    If the court finds your landlord hasnít protected your deposit, it can order the person holding the deposit to either:

    repay it to you
    pay it into a TDP schemeís bank account within 14 days
    The court may also order the landlord to pay you up to 3 times the deposit within 14 days of making the order.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 18th Aug 18, 12:53 PM
    • 13,344 Posts
    • 19,222 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    The law says this:

    If the court finds your landlord hasn!!!8217;t protected your deposit, it can order the person holding the deposit to either:

    repay it to you
    pay it into a TDP scheme!!!8217;s bank account within 14 days
    The court may also order the landlord to pay you up to 3 times the deposit within 14 days of making the order.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    That's not what the law says. The says,

    3A) The court may order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay all or part of it to the applicant within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.]

    (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 within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
    Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4

    The court has no choice but to award the tenant 1 to 3 times the deposit because the law says that they must, not that they may or might but that they must so that part is definitely going to happen.

    I don't know why you're still making these ridiculous claims because this has been explained to you before on other threads.
    • Wail
    • By Wail 18th Aug 18, 1:12 PM
    • 244 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Wail
    Would it help if I told you what happened to us?

    We moved in with an agency arranging everything. We were novices to this and assumed that the agency had got on with protecting the deposit. They didnít. The landlord should have done.

    Our landlord didnít pay the mortgage

    We received two hand delivered letters from the banks representatives to the occupier noting that eviction proceedings were set to take place.

    The law has changed on chucking tenants out of properties. They donít just throw you out as long as you provide appropriate evidence. They wanted a copy of the agreement and wanted to know what we were paying. Their advice was to keep paying the landlord. We were given two months by the bank.

    With the deposit not protected, we had a discussion with Shelter. They advised the same thing (1-3x the deposit) but our view is that if they were heading towards bankruptcy, any legal action would be fruitless. We served a formal letter with a clear note telling the landlord that they wouldnít get the last months payment and a note that this was an absolute bargain compared to a court case. The letter was responded to in 24 hours.

    We had a few shouting matches with the landlords representative but they were advised that we would protect the property and hand the keys to them.

    The bank repossessed the property a few weeks after we left.
    • Wanderingpomm
    • By Wanderingpomm 19th Aug 18, 12:18 AM
    • 100 Posts
    • 101 Thanks
    Wanderingpomm
    That's not what the law says. The says,



    Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4

    The court has no choice but to award the tenant 1 to 3 times the deposit because the law says that they must, not that they may or might but that they must so that part is definitely going to happen.

    I don't know why you're still making these ridiculous claims because this has been explained to you before on other threads.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    That says the tenant must get their deposit back (deposit x1) not nessacrily that there is a fine as well.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 19th Aug 18, 7:24 AM
    • 13,344 Posts
    • 19,222 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    That says the tenant must get their deposit back (deposit x1) not nessacrily that there is a fine as well.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    That's not what it says at all. I don't know why you find this so difficult to grasp. There's the deposit itself to be dealt with and then there's the penalty which is equivalent to not less than the value of the deposit and not more than 3 times the value of the deposit. You're not helping anyone by continually posting mis-information about deposit protection. Try familiarising yourself with the law.
    Last edited by Pixie5740; 19-08-2018 at 7:31 AM.
    • Wanderingpomm
    • By Wanderingpomm 19th Aug 18, 10:36 AM
    • 100 Posts
    • 101 Thanks
    Wanderingpomm
    That's not what it says at all. I don't know why you find this so difficult to grasp. There's the deposit itself to be dealt with and then there's the penalty which is equivalent to not less than the value of the deposit and not more than 3 times the value of the deposit. You're not helping anyone by continually posting mis-information about deposit protection. Try familiarising yourself with the law.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    I work in legal advice & have sat through a high number of these court cases. Therefore I have some clue what i!!!8217;m talking about.

    The money must be either put into a scheme or returned.
    Then the court MAY also include a penalty.

    The paragraph I posted in an earlier comment is copied from court documents so is correct.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 19th Aug 18, 12:01 PM
    • 46,143 Posts
    • 55,819 Thanks
    G_M
    I work in legal advice & have sat through a high number of these court cases. Therefore I have some clue what i!!!8217;m talking about.

    The money must be either put into a scheme or returned.
    Then the court MAY also include a penalty.

    The paragraph I posted in an earlier comment is copied from court documents so is correct.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    You may work in legal advice, but if so you need to keep up to date.

    The Housing Act that set up deposit registration, and created the penalty, has been amended twice.

    As pixie said (and quoted - read the Act!) the law now says "must...." not "may".

    Frankly you should not be working in legal advice if this is typical of your out-of-date knowledge.

    See in particular the wording of the Housing Act 2004 section 214 (4) as amended (do not just read the original wording from 2004!).


    Housing Act 2004 (Section 212: tenancy deposit schemes)

    Localism Act 2011 (Section 184: tenancy deposit schemes)

    Deregulation Act 2015 Ss 30-32 (amendments to Housing Act & Localism Act re S21 service, & penalties)




    Perhaps my guide would help with your work:

    * Deposits:
    payment, protection and return
    Last edited by G_M; 19-08-2018 at 1:46 PM.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 19th Aug 18, 8:17 PM
    • 13,344 Posts
    • 19,222 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    I work in legal advice & have sat through a high number of these court cases. Therefore I have some clue what i!!!8217;m talking about.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    Your posts would suggest otherwise. If it's remotely true that you work in legal advice then that's both embarrassing and terrifying.

    The money must be either put into a scheme or returned.
    Then the court MAY also include a penalty.

    The paragraph I posted in an earlier comment is copied from court documents so is correct.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    Except that's not what the legislation says so what you are claiming to be correct is codswallop.
    • Lost Property
    • By Lost Property 13th Oct 18, 9:02 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Lost Property
    Bulls actually navigate china shops as lightly as a ballet-dancer. I saw a TV demo - it was amazing.

    Agree with everyone regarding premature timing, but you could say to him "now that you know we're not completely naive saps let's negotiate a less one-sided deal on more level terms and avoid any authorities unnecessarily poking their noses in." Your LL doesn't have to like you, but you do need him to respect you, even fearing you. He needs reminding which side his bread is buttered (and where the butter is coming from).

    You'll regain a little favour further down the line by reminding him of things you are not insisting he fusses about and even fixing a few niggly things yourself. He can't actually get rid of you other than by illegal means and you would land him in it if he tried, so you're more secure than tenants of an "honest" LL in constant fear of valid S21s.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 14th Oct 18, 12:26 AM
    • 5,781 Posts
    • 5,959 Thanks
    Comms69
    I work in legal advice & have sat through a high number of these court cases. Therefore I have some clue what i!!!8217;m talking about.

    The money must be either put into a scheme or returned.
    Then the court MAY also include a penalty.

    The paragraph I posted in an earlier comment is copied from court documents so is correct.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    I believe you do work broadly in the field... perhaps booking appointments at CAB
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 14th Oct 18, 6:56 AM
    • 33,574 Posts
    • 20,305 Thanks
    getmore4less
    That says the tenant must get their deposit back (deposit x1) not nessacrily that there is a fine as well.
    Originally posted by Wanderingpomm
    as before

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/6/chapter/4
    Includes any amendments by the
    Localism Act 2011
    Crime and Courts Act 2013
    Deregulation Act 2015
    Housing and Planning Act 2016



    214 subsections 1,2,3,4 apply (application while a tenant)

    (1)Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy [F5on or after 6 April 2007] , the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to [F6the county court] on the groundsó

    [F7(a)that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, or]

    (b)that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.
    (2)Subsections (3) and (4) apply [F9 in the case of an application under subsection (1) if the tenancy has not ended and ] the courtó

    [F10(a)is satisfied that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, or]

    (b)is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,

    as the case may be.
    (
    3)The court must, as it thinks fit, eitheró

    (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,
    4)The court must F13... order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money [F14 not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than ] three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
    • Sibz
    • By Sibz 15th Oct 18, 4:54 PM
    • 119 Posts
    • 83 Thanks
    Sibz
    Yeah, you played the TDS card too early - 3 x deposit amount is a tidy sum... LL tried to con me out of deposit a few years ago and it cost him a considerable sum more than he tried to rip me off for when I discovered they hadn't use a TDS - that LL and EA was particulalry stupid as I gave him the opportunity to just give me my entire deposit back before taking it further - and they still tried to chance it.

    Pixies posts are spot on.... courts take a dim view of this - the current legislation is there due to such high numbers of cases of LLs ripping people off on deposits. the 3x amount tends to be the norm especially if it's a LL that has numerous properties.

    I'd probably be looking to rent elsewhere (somewhere more reputable) - who knows what other corners they're cutting...
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,963Posts Today

7,880Users online

Martin's Twitter