Comments on: Important court ruling for landlords

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:08:09 +0000

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?

By: jason

jason — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:30:40 +0000

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

By: David

David — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:33:16 +0000

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!

By: Robin Pearce

Robin Pearce — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:53:42 +0000

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.