Deposit not in a scheme - help please!

[hanamck]

Hello there,

As per new regulations that came in last April concerning deposits for Assured short-hold tenancies I have a question concerning this.

Our flat agency never provided us with the details of the scheme/ID initially (we moved in 5th July last year). Upon multiple asking for these details since moving out at the beginning of the month (and receiving nothing) I think it is clear that they never put our money in a scheme.

It has been 3 weeks since we left the property and they keep saying they will be sending the cheque for our deposit and early next week is now when they say it will arrive.

What I'm asking, is even if we get the deposit back, are we entitled to take them to court for 3 times the amount as they never protected it as per this section:

What if your landlord isn’t protecting your deposit?
You can apply to your local county court. The court can order the landlord or agent to either repay the deposit to you or protect it in a scheme. If your landlord or agent has not protected your deposit, they will be ordered to repay three times the amount of the deposit to you.

Found on website http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TenancyDeposit/DG_066373

All thoughts appreciated.

Thanks!
Hannah

[Steven]

Absolutely. Take them to the cleaners

[Bel]

There are several threads on this forum concerning claiming the deposit 3X

Check them out, but I think it applies more if you are still a tenant.

You will have to be prepared to spend quite afew hours researching and putting a claim together.

[hanamck]

Hello there,

Well I think it would be worth a few hours of my time to get 3 times my deposit back! As I have still not heard any details about the scheme from the agency.

I will look for those posts as I just need to know how I go about starting this claim.

Hannah

[richiedc]

would you take the landlord... or the agent to the court???

[jeffrey]

would you take the landlord... or the agent to the court???
T's contract is the AST with L only. T has NO contract with Agent (A) who is merely acting on L's behalf.
T cannot sue A. T can sue L only.

[hanamck]

T's contract is the AST with L only. T has NO contract with Agent (A) who is merely acting on L's behalf. T cannot sue A. T can sue L only.

So can the L sue the A if L gives us the money out of his own pocket? :confused:

[jeffrey]

So can the L sue the A if L gives us the money out of his own pocket? :confused:
Yes. Money received by A on L's account is L's money, after all.

[hanamck]

Thanks for all the information! :D

[lorenzo]

I have a further question regarding this please.

As I've detailed before, we also have not received notification that our deposit is protected.

I am not interested in suing, only interested in being treated fairly, but I want to keep this in my back pocket for future fun and games, if necessary.

How do I prove that I haven't received notice? It may very well be on file at LA's office, if so, It becomes a case of my word against their's.

Any ideas?

[Esio Trot]

T's contract is the AST with L only. T has NO contract with Agent (A) who is merely acting on L's behalf.
T cannot sue A. T can sue L only.

My reading of the relevant bits of legislation leads me to think that this is not as clear cut as it should be.

The 2004 Housing Act s214 refers to "the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit ...". Thus if the agent is holding it, it seems to me that they should also be joined as a co-defendant - or even singly.

What if the owner is overseas, the s48 is the agents address and the owner has no knowledge? My first thoughts were "Tough. Should be using a better agent." But is not the agent culpable here, and therefore subject to the sanctions of the law?

[jeffrey]

My reading of the relevant bits of legislation leads me to think that this is not as clear cut as it should be.

The 2004 Housing Act s214 refers to "the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit ...". Thus if the agent is holding it, it seems to me that they should also be joined as a co-defendant - or even singly.

What if the owner is overseas, the s48 is the agents address and the owner has no knowledge? My first thoughts were "Tough. Should be using a better agent." But is not the agent culpable here, and therefore subject to the sanctions of the law?
The 2004 Act can create a statutory liability, of course. I referred however only to contractual liability.