Deposit cock up with tenancy , am I screwed?
Discussion
Grunt Futtock said:
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.
How did you let it get that far gone during the tenancy? When renting I was inspected every quarter (6 month rolling let) does npo one do inspections during the let anymore?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.
Wings said:
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.
^^This^^
Where I believe Wings is mistaken is his interpretation of Section 215(1).
That applies specifically to the ability to serve a Section 21 notice, not to any failure to protect a deposit.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, Section 214(4) sets out the range of financial penalty a court can impose.
not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times the amount of the deposit
The whole point of the sanction is to ensure compliance with the requirement to provide the prescribed information and secure the deposit.
Where I believe Wings is mistaken is his interpretation of Section 215(1).
That applies specifically to the ability to serve a Section 21 notice, not to any failure to protect a deposit.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, Section 214(4) sets out the range of financial penalty a court can impose.
not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times the amount of the deposit
The whole point of the sanction is to ensure compliance with the requirement to provide the prescribed information and secure the deposit.
CraigyMc said:
Grunt Futtock said:
I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord.
"An excellent landlord" is not how anyone sensible would describe a landlord who broke the law regarding protection of a tenants deposit.It will however, require a hundred of him to balance your particular brand of nonsense.
Edited by Mandalore on Thursday 8th June 17:51
My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
Grunt Futtock said:
My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
Yeah. How dreadful for lawyers and tenants to be applying the law correctly, and 'catching out' those unfortunate landlords who couldn't be bothered to understand/deliver against their legal obligations. To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
C70R said:
Grunt Futtock said:
My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
Yeah. How dreadful for lawyers and tenants to be applying the law correctly, and 'catching out' those unfortunate landlords who couldn't be bothered to understand/deliver against their legal obligations. To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
Mandalore said:
CraigyMc said:
Grunt Futtock said:
I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord.
"An excellent landlord" is not how anyone sensible would describe a landlord who broke the law regarding protection of a tenants deposit.It will however, require a hundred of him to balance your particular brand of nonsense.
Grunt Futtock said:
My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
your missing the point. Its not compensation industry. You broke the law. You should have used a letting agency or been more professional in letting out your property. Its a business. Businesses have rules and regs to comply with. there are 150 odd that directly apply to lettings. Most of my job at work is ensuring compliance for our landlords and us as their letting agent.To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
A number of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).
We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance plus offer a better service then the corporates.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 9th June 09:08
superlightr said:
your missing the point. Its not compensation industry. You broke the law. You should have used a letting agency or been more professional in letting out your property. Its a business. Businesses have rules and regs to comply with. there are 150 odd that directly apply to lettings. Most of my job at work is ensuring compliance for our landlords and us as their letting agent.
Most of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).
We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance.
It's referred to as tenancy deposit compensation on all the sites I have seen, Shelter for example. I'm not disputing that a law was broken, what I am disappointed about is that the penalty can be so severe even in cases where there has been no loss of any kind suffered. Most of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).
We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance.
You only saw fit to return the deposit once you realised you had messed up. Therefore the system has done its job in protecting the tenant.
Claiming for new blinds when they are 6 years old was poor form anyway. Their value at this stage is much less, even if they had been well kept. Is it 3 blinds or 7 by the way? Your posts are confusing on this point.
No sympathy I'm afraid. You will be a better landlord in future I'm sure.
Claiming for new blinds when they are 6 years old was poor form anyway. Their value at this stage is much less, even if they had been well kept. Is it 3 blinds or 7 by the way? Your posts are confusing on this point.
No sympathy I'm afraid. You will be a better landlord in future I'm sure.
Grunt Futtock said:
superlightr said:
your missing the point. Its not compensation industry. You broke the law. You should have used a letting agency or been more professional in letting out your property. Its a business. Businesses have rules and regs to comply with. there are 150 odd that directly apply to lettings. Most of my job at work is ensuring compliance for our landlords and us as their letting agent.
Most of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).
We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance.
It's referred to as tenancy deposit compensation on all the sites I have seen, Shelter for example. I'm not disputing that a law was broken, what I am disappointed about is that the penalty can be so severe even in cases where there has been no loss of any kind suffered. Most of the landlords that approach us after trying a bit of DIY letting and then get bitten really do not understand the laws and changes recently, they really don't approach vetting of tenants in the same level that we do as a family firm of letting agents They do not issue the correct documents and their properties do not comply with the laws. (not many agents are as careful as we are as a family business ).
We do well because we are on top of the legislation and protect our landlords and compliance.
superlightr said:
your missing the point. Its not compensation industry. You broke the law. You should have used a letting agency or been more professional in letting out your property. Its a business. Businesses have rules and regs to comply with.
Exactly my point. The laws were brought in to stop private lettings being like the Wild West, but it seems that some landlords are still convinced that the industry's sole reason for existence should be their ability to make money.CraigyMc said:
Mandalore said:
CraigyMc said:
Grunt Futtock said:
I have sorted any repairs over the tenancy quickly and generally been an excellent landlord.
"An excellent landlord" is not how anyone sensible would describe a landlord who broke the law regarding protection of a tenants deposit.It will however, require a hundred of him to balance your particular brand of nonsense.
Unless... you personally believe in time travel or that the film with Tom Cruise about seeing crimes before they happen is science fact?
Grunt Futtock said:
My eyes have been truly opened on the tenancy deposit compensation industry, there are plenty of no win no fee outfits who have sprung up to get greedy tenants as much money as possible.
To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
I take on board you comments about greedy people, no win sharks etc but in short, protecting the deposit is one of the most fundamental parts of a landlord's obligations not some obscure rule hidden away somewhere in small print.To clarify I have not objection to deposits being protected and if you are in a current tenancy and your landlord is failing to protect it they absolutely should but when ex-tenants who have had the full deposit returned get a twinkle in their eye and see some free money via no win no fee sharks it just adds to the 'compo' culture.
I saw the writing on the wall a couple of years ago, legislation, taxation and the difficulties around "bad tenants" `and feel BTL is going to be even less attractive as time passes.
I found membership of a Landlords association helpful and also placed my properties in the hands of agents - less profit but far less hassle.
I always took the longer term view that as long as the tenant was paying the mortgage, outgoings and upkeep and I received the future increase in the value of the flat.
I realise it is an expensive lesson for you but you left yourself wide open I'm sorry to say.
vetrof said:
Why not completely ignore the son? If your contract was with the tenant, then what has it got to do with him?
Insist on dealing with her only.
Doubt it would take much for him to get power of attorney given her health..........we all make mistakes but what you do after matters most.........I've told all my children / grandchildren this and it works believe me. Trying to run away and hide will solve nothing IMO.Insist on dealing with her only.
You'd probably have got away with it if you'd just given the deposit back the instant the tenancy ended. Would've been no reason for anyone to look any deeper into where it'd been for the last five years.
By being difficult, you drew attention to yourself, and now you're going to be subject to the consequences you were already at risk of for not holding the deposit correctly.
People told you this.
By being difficult, you drew attention to yourself, and now you're going to be subject to the consequences you were already at risk of for not holding the deposit correctly.
People told you this.
InitialDave said:
You'd probably have got away with it if you'd just given the deposit back the instant the tenancy ended. Would've been no reason for anyone to look any deeper into where it'd been for the last five years.
By being difficult, you drew attention to yourself, and now you're going to be subject to the consequences you were already at risk of for not holding the deposit correctly.
People told you this.
I agree. By being difficult, you drew attention to yourself, and now you're going to be subject to the consequences you were already at risk of for not holding the deposit correctly.
People told you this.
There's a lot of frothing on this thread but it all comes down to one fact, the OP failed to protect the deposit and thus may now be fined three times that amount. It's a lesson leant and I assume not one that the OP will repeat.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff