ONE of the first cases concerning the 2007 tenancy deposit protection scheme was heard recently.
The County Court overturned the findings of the first instance judge to find in favour of the landlord.
Richard Freeman-Wallace, nebusiness.co.uk – 8 Oct 2008
The landlord in question had properly placed his tenant’s deposit in a tenancy deposit scheme but had not informed the tenant about the details of the scheme within the statutory 14 days, Sheffield County Court heard (Harvey v Bamforth, Sheffield County Court)
The statutory penalty is three times the deposit for failure to register or protect the deposit.
The County Court judge ruled that in this case the failure to provide information on time did not mean that the penalty was payable because the information was still provided before the tenant submitted his application.
The decision is an important
one for landlords as the Citizens Advice Bureau said there were hundreds of similar cases waiting to be heard.
The judgment clarified that provided the landlord supplies the certificate and other prescribed information without delays outside the 14-day statutory limit, he will not breach the Act.
The tenancy deposit scheme, which came into force in April 2007, affects thousands of property owners who currently take deposits worth about £1.2bn from tenants each year. Full Article
This makes sense. The tenant only ever needs the deposit scheme information if there is a dispute over how much deposit the tenant should receive back from the landlord. Such disputes will always occur at the end of the tenancy. Therefore there’s no need for the tenant to have the information at the start of the tenancy.
Comment by Robin Pearce — 18/10/2008 #
The tenancy deposit protection scheme was a joke from the start, just something for Prescott and the awful Yvette Cooper to do to punish the greedy landlords. The sooner the whole thing is scrapped the better, along with the ridiculous (and unenforceable) Energy Performance Certificates. Leave us guys alone!
Comment by David — 20/10/2008 #
What a ridiculous concept.
Its my property I will keep the deposit myself.
Just so the govt can profit from interest while we work harder and harder. Forget it
Comment by jason — 21/10/2008 #
The intention of legislation was to protect tenants and ensure that landlords comply with s213 of the Act. As many cases are proving; legislation is toothless and most certainly does NOT protect the tenant – especially if the tenancy comes to an end. If a tenancy ends and the tenant discovers s213 was not complied with – the landlord can escape the penalty in s214 provisions by simply placing the deposit in a sheme even if the tenancy has ended! Is that taking the mickey out of legislation or what? And to stand in the landlords favour even more – the tenant has no claim because the tenancy has ended – make sense of that eh? Surely if s213 has not been complied with during the life of the tenancy – then s214 applies?
Comment by Karen — 15/11/2011 #