Deposit cock up with tenancy , am I screwed?
Discussion
garyhun said:
To be fair, if you found out that your old mum was being charged unfairly (in your eyes) after a 5 year tenancy AND that the deposit had never been protected I think you may feel different.
No, no. I do agree. £500 for the blinds, I'd kick up hell. And the deposit wasn't protected, double whammy. But the son wanting to settle out of court for the MAXIMUM penalty is just unrealistic. People settle out of court for a middle of the road agreement. If he offered say 2x the deposit, saving himself and his mum the hassle and stress (whilst she's poorly, I may add) then he's taught the OP a lesson and he's had his victory. Win win?If it goes to court and the OP is ordered to pay 3x, then that's just what happens. But going straight to the maximum penalty? It's obviously going to go to court then...
Jonno02 said:
garyhun said:
To be fair, if you found out that your old mum was being charged unfairly (in your eyes) after a 5 year tenancy AND that the deposit had never been protected I think you may feel different.
No, no. I do agree. £500 for the blinds, I'd kick up hell. And the deposit wasn't protected, double whammy. But the son wanting to settle out of court for the MAXIMUM penalty is just unrealistic. People settle out of court for a middle of the road agreement. If he offered say 2x the deposit, saving himself and his mum the hassle and stress (whilst she's poorly, I may add) then he's taught the OP a lesson and he's had his victory. Win win?If it goes to court and the OP is ordered to pay 3x, then that's just what happens. But going straight to the maximum penalty? It's obviously going to go to court then...
C70R said:
We knew that our landlord hadn't protected the deposit as soon as the time was up, but chose not to raise it and keep it in our back pockets in the eventuality that he became unreasonable.
We did exactly the same with a previous landlord who was proving to be a complete cowboy. We left the property undamaged and a whole lot cleaner than we found it, so there'd have been no cause for him to withhold the deposit, but given some of his antics during the tenancy and a visit from a previous tenant for some mail, during which he revealed that it'd taken him eight weeks to get his deposit back, we thought we'd keep the "DPS card" up our sleeve to play if we needed to. I casually dropped enough into conversation, as we were handing the property back over, for the LL to know that we knew our rights. The deposit came back pretty sharpish!MitchT said:
We did exactly the same with a previous landlord who was proving to be a complete cowboy. We left the property undamaged and a whole lot cleaner than we found it, so there'd have been no cause for him to withhold the deposit, but given some of his antics during the tenancy and a visit from a previous tenant for some mail, during which he revealed that it'd taken him eight weeks to get his deposit back, we thought we'd keep the "DPS card" up our sleeve to play if we needed to. I casually dropped enough into conversation, as we were handing the property back over, for the LL to know that we knew our rights. The deposit came back pretty sharpish!
8 weeks - I'll raise you 16! 
All I asked for was some receipts and it took 15 weeks to get them, unfortunately by that point I had already launched a dispute with the DPS so we'll see what comes from that.[quote=superlightr]
The only caveats I would add is that the courts "must" impose a penalty for a breach of a strict liability offence because this is stated in the Act
and the penalty will be "1-3 months" deposit not " upto 3 months" deposit.
I believe it to be a 1-3 months penalty so if you are lucky you will be fined 1 months deposit if not then anything from 1-3 months deposit.
s214 - "The Court must order the landlord to pay to the application 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"
Mitigation wont come into it as its a strict liability offence. No other consideration will come into it or be allowed - even if they have trashed the house. You have failed to protect the deposit = you are guilty. I'm certain you will be fined.
Let us know how you get on.
Use a Letting Agent next time.
With respect to you superlightr you should know that following the Housing Act 2004 being amended by the Localism Act 2011, the position changed on landlords/agents who had failed to protect tenancy Deposits, see below where I have highlighted the position or your future referral and to assist the OP:-
S.215
(1) [Subject to subsection (2A),] if a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
(a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
(b) section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit.
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant,
or
(b) an application to a county court has been made under section 214(1) and has been determined by the court, withdrawn or settled by agreement between the parties.
OP and superlightr, the position being that (2A)(a) means that once the Deposit has been returned to the tenant, (1) does not apply, with effectively retrospective effect, so any s.21 previously served is valid once the deposit has been returned.
^^^The above OP is a landlord’s escape clause, return the Deposit in Full, and once returned ex tenant or son has no case to take to Court.
The only caveats I would add is that the courts "must" impose a penalty for a breach of a strict liability offence because this is stated in the Act
and the penalty will be "1-3 months" deposit not " upto 3 months" deposit.
I believe it to be a 1-3 months penalty so if you are lucky you will be fined 1 months deposit if not then anything from 1-3 months deposit.
s214 - "The Court must order the landlord to pay to the application 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"
Mitigation wont come into it as its a strict liability offence. No other consideration will come into it or be allowed - even if they have trashed the house. You have failed to protect the deposit = you are guilty. I'm certain you will be fined.
Let us know how you get on.
Use a Letting Agent next time.
With respect to you superlightr you should know that following the Housing Act 2004 being amended by the Localism Act 2011, the position changed on landlords/agents who had failed to protect tenancy Deposits, see below where I have highlighted the position or your future referral and to assist the OP:-
S.215
(1) [Subject to subsection (2A),] if a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
(a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
(b) section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit.
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant,
or
(b) an application to a county court has been made under section 214(1) and has been determined by the court, withdrawn or settled by agreement between the parties.
OP and superlightr, the position being that (2A)(a) means that once the Deposit has been returned to the tenant, (1) does not apply, with effectively retrospective effect, so any s.21 previously served is valid once the deposit has been returned.
^^^The above OP is a landlord’s escape clause, return the Deposit in Full, and once returned ex tenant or son has no case to take to Court.
Wings said:
superlightr said:
The only caveats I would add is that the courts "must" impose a penalty for a breach of a strict liability offence because this is stated in the Act
and the penalty will be "1-3 months" deposit not " upto 3 months" deposit.
I believe it to be a 1-3 months penalty so if you are lucky you will be fined 1 months deposit if not then anything from 1-3 months deposit.
s214 - "The Court must order the landlord to pay to the application 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"
Mitigation wont come into it as its a strict liability offence. No other consideration will come into it or be allowed - even if they have trashed the house. You have failed to protect the deposit = you are guilty. I'm certain you will be fined.
Let us know how you get on.
Use a Letting Agent next time.
With respect to you superlightr you should know that following the Housing Act 2004 being amended by the Localism Act 2011, the position changed on landlords/agents who had failed to protect tenancy Deposits, see below where I have highlighted the position or your future referral and to assist the OP:-
S.215
(1) [Subject to subsection (2A),] if a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
(a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
(b) section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit.
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant,
or
(b) an application to a county court has been made under section 214(1) and has been determined by the court, withdrawn or settled by agreement between the parties.
OP and superlightr, the position being that (2A)(a) means that once the Deposit has been returned to the tenant, (1) does not apply, with effectively retrospective effect, so any s.21 previously served is valid once the deposit has been returned.
^^^The above OP is a landlord’s escape clause, return the Deposit in Full, and once returned ex tenant or son has no case to take to Court.
and the penalty will be "1-3 months" deposit not " upto 3 months" deposit.
I believe it to be a 1-3 months penalty so if you are lucky you will be fined 1 months deposit if not then anything from 1-3 months deposit.
s214 - "The Court must order the landlord to pay to the application 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"
Mitigation wont come into it as its a strict liability offence. No other consideration will come into it or be allowed - even if they have trashed the house. You have failed to protect the deposit = you are guilty. I'm certain you will be fined.
Let us know how you get on.
Use a Letting Agent next time.
With respect to you superlightr you should know that following the Housing Act 2004 being amended by the Localism Act 2011, the position changed on landlords/agents who had failed to protect tenancy Deposits, see below where I have highlighted the position or your future referral and to assist the OP:-
S.215
(1) [Subject to subsection (2A),] if a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
(a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
(b) section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit.
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant,
or
(b) an application to a county court has been made under section 214(1) and has been determined by the court, withdrawn or settled by agreement between the parties.
OP and superlightr, the position being that (2A)(a) means that once the Deposit has been returned to the tenant, (1) does not apply, with effectively retrospective effect, so any s.21 previously served is valid once the deposit has been returned.
^^^The above OP is a landlord’s escape clause, return the Deposit in Full, and once returned ex tenant or son has no case to take to Court.
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:24
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:24
As I understand it that only refers to issuing of notices ie s21 and when you can and cant issues it in relation to the deposit.
Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:28
superlightr said:
As I understand it that only refers to issuing of notices ie s21 and when you can and cant issues it in relation to the deposit.
Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
HOW could it possibly JUST apply to the issuing of a Section 21 Notice, if that was the case then at any repossession court hearing, the defendant/tenant would simply raise the issue of a Deposit not being protected,Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:28
So I repeat superlightr, where a landlord returns a Deposit in FULL, then a tenant has NO case against the landlord for not previously protecting a Deposit.
Wings said:
superlightr said:
As I understand it that only refers to issuing of notices ie s21 and when you can and cant issues it in relation to the deposit.
Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
HOW could it possibly JUST apply to the issuing of a Section 21 Notice, if that was the case then at any repossession court hearing, the defendant/tenant would simply raise the issue of a Deposit not being protected,Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:28
So I repeat superlightr, where a landlord returns a Deposit in FULL, then a tenant has NO case against the landlord for not previously protecting a Deposit.
So on that logic you get caught stealing from Tesco, hand it back and walk away......I'm sure I must be missing something here but as a Landlord myself I am really interested in this.
Wings said:
superlightr said:
As I understand it that only refers to issuing of notices ie s21 and when you can and cant issues it in relation to the deposit.
Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
HOW could it possibly JUST apply to the issuing of a Section 21 Notice, if that was the case then at any repossession court hearing, the defendant/tenant would simply raise the issue of a Deposit not being protected,Its separate to the actual offence and penalty for not registering.
Paying back the deposit does not remove the offence or failure to comply and hence strict liability and hence the penalty "must" apply and be 1-3 x the deposit.
Always happy to learn/be corrected and look forward to the op updating as and when
Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 6th June 21:28
So I repeat superlightr, where a landlord returns a Deposit in FULL, then a tenant has NO case against the landlord for not previously protecting a Deposit.
and would not make sense if you could give back the deposit and have no penalty.It forces a LL to return the deposit or register it in order they can give a s21 notice to remove a tenant from a property. not protecting a deposit stops a LL from giving notice. giving back or late registration does not get around the breach of it not being registered within 30 days of the start of receiving the deposit.
The fact the deposit was/is not protected is still a separate issue for which its an offence not to comply with registration and has strict liability issues which the court "must" award "1-3" x the deposit.
Im sure I have read in my journals/trade articles exactly as above.
+1
I don't believe that simply repaying the deposit is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It will not prevent the tenant/ex-tenant from bringing proceedings.
See Section 212(4) of the Housing Act 2004, as amended by the Section 184(9) of the Localism Act 2011.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/sectio...
'The court must...'. i.e. the penalty is mandatory.
There would be no point in having a compulsory protection scheme if there were no sanction for ignoring it.
I don't believe that simply repaying the deposit is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It will not prevent the tenant/ex-tenant from bringing proceedings.
See Section 212(4) of the Housing Act 2004, as amended by the Section 184(9) of the Localism Act 2011.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/sectio...
'The court must...'. i.e. the penalty is mandatory.
There would be no point in having a compulsory protection scheme if there were no sanction for ignoring it.
superlightr said:
That's not my understanding of how it works. and would not make sense if you could give back the deposit and have no penalty.
It forces a LL to return the deposit or register it in order they can give a s21 notice to remove a tenant from a property. not protecting a deposit stops a LL from giving notice. giving back or late registration does not get around the breach of it not being registered within 30 days of the start of receiving the deposit.
The fact the deposit was/is not protected is still a separate issue for which its an offence not to comply with registration and has strict liability issues which the court "must" award "1-3" x the deposit.
Im sure I have read in my journals/trade articles exactly as above.
I again repeat superlightr:- and would not make sense if you could give back the deposit and have no penalty.It forces a LL to return the deposit or register it in order they can give a s21 notice to remove a tenant from a property. not protecting a deposit stops a LL from giving notice. giving back or late registration does not get around the breach of it not being registered within 30 days of the start of receiving the deposit.
The fact the deposit was/is not protected is still a separate issue for which its an offence not to comply with registration and has strict liability issues which the court "must" award "1-3" x the deposit.
Im sure I have read in my journals/trade articles exactly as above.
s215 states
(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in a case where—
(a) the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant, END
Where the return of the Deposit to the tenant/s allows for a landlord/agent to serve on the tenant/s a section 21 Notice, WHY can a tenant/s receiving the Section 21 Notice not issue a counterclaim that the Deposit HAS/WAS not protected.
The intentions of the Housing Act 2004 and the Localism 2011 in part was to protect a tenant's Deposit, the return by the landlord/agent of the tenant's Deposit, achieves the same intentions of the Acts, therefore there is now no offence for the landlord/agent to answer.
Grunt Futtock said:
Update for those interested, tenant's son is going to take it to court but has asked if I would like to offer a settlement figure. I offered compensation of the original bond value plus 20%. Tenant's son declined and offered to accept 3 x the bond amount (so the maximum penalty in court).
I expect I will be restating my original offer as the tenant has suffered no loss whatsoever and indeed I have a signed agreement with her from the start of the tenancy agreeing for me to hold the bond and forfeiting it in the event of her leaving the property within 5 years to cover the significant cost of reinstalling the disabled access facilities for her use.
I understand that this doesn't exempt me from the law regarding TDS but I feel that given I have done everything to make her tenancy as pleasant as possible for her and returned her entire bond very quickly it should hopefully sit well with the court.
If the tenant takes you to court, he will win 3x the deposit and you will pay his costs.I expect I will be restating my original offer as the tenant has suffered no loss whatsoever and indeed I have a signed agreement with her from the start of the tenancy agreeing for me to hold the bond and forfeiting it in the event of her leaving the property within 5 years to cover the significant cost of reinstalling the disabled access facilities for her use.
I understand that this doesn't exempt me from the law regarding TDS but I feel that given I have done everything to make her tenancy as pleasant as possible for her and returned her entire bond very quickly it should hopefully sit well with the court.
He's doing you a favour by letting you avoid those costs.
Do let us know how you get on.
xjay1337 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We recently rented a house - It was NOT cleaned at all other than a quick wipedown of the kitchen surfaces , bathroom and a hoover.There was lots of shower scum, dust etc. The oven was horrific.
So when we hand it back we will ensure it's in the same state as when we found it.... t
ts. t, missed that. No, we haven't. Ker-ching, £25 off the deposit. On a six month let! I've had our cooker hood filters out once or twice since they were fitted a decade and a half ago, took one look at them and put them back.
Not much by way of an update, awaiting response to second offer of settlement.
To clear up some of the speculation surrounding this:
The tenant and I have had a perfectly amicable relationship, I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord. The tenant passed on her regards and was sorry she was leaving.
The son however is out to extort as much money as he can. He's seen the gravy train and wants to ride it all the way to the bank.
The £500 blinds seem to be a point of contention, well when the blinds went in brand new they were only slightly less. They have had to be completely replaced including tracks etc and represent seven different blinds across three windows, £70 a blind isn't bad in my eyes.
The surfaces in the ktichen were thick with grease and the washing machine was covered in black mould. The front room had lots of mould because she effectively lived in there and never opened the windows. Investigation has shown that the mould was a result of never ventilating the flat whilst drying clothes and cooking indoors i.e. not a damp problem.
In any case the tenant had her bond returned in FULL within 24 hours of receiving the bank details. This 'compensation' the son seeks is exactly the same as the 'compensation' some of the ambulance chasers get their clientele to buy in to except on this occasion there is absolutely no loss/injury whatsoever.
To clear up some of the speculation surrounding this:
The tenant and I have had a perfectly amicable relationship, I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord. The tenant passed on her regards and was sorry she was leaving.
The son however is out to extort as much money as he can. He's seen the gravy train and wants to ride it all the way to the bank.
The £500 blinds seem to be a point of contention, well when the blinds went in brand new they were only slightly less. They have had to be completely replaced including tracks etc and represent seven different blinds across three windows, £70 a blind isn't bad in my eyes.
The surfaces in the ktichen were thick with grease and the washing machine was covered in black mould. The front room had lots of mould because she effectively lived in there and never opened the windows. Investigation has shown that the mould was a result of never ventilating the flat whilst drying clothes and cooking indoors i.e. not a damp problem.
In any case the tenant had her bond returned in FULL within 24 hours of receiving the bank details. This 'compensation' the son seeks is exactly the same as the 'compensation' some of the ambulance chasers get their clientele to buy in to except on this occasion there is absolutely no loss/injury whatsoever.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff