PDA

View Full Version : Deposits



pfduk
20-03-2009, 08:58 AM
I thought other Landlords should be aware of the Deposit compensation scheme. Failing to secure a tenants deposit will result in compensation being paid to the tenant of 3 times the deposit plus their deposit returned. Even if you have a tenant that was in occupation prior to April 2007 and you issue a new lease for any reason, you MUST secure their deposit. Failure to do so will result in compensation having to be paid.

I had a tenant that started their tenancy in February 2004. In August 2008 I wanted to increase the rent and she asked for a new lease so she could go to the DSS and claim the rent increase. I issued a new lease. It was to expire on the 19th Febraury 2009. On the 14th November she gave me 2 weeks notice. I said she could vacate but I didn't know at what cost, it depended on how long it would take to re-let the flat. She asked for her deposit to be returned but as I did not let the flat until February I said I had been severely out of pocket to the tune of £1500 and that I would settle for her deposit £380 in exchange for the £1500 owing. She seeked legal advice and on the 3 times compensation rule, claimed that as I had not secured her deposit in August she was entitled to her deposit and the compensation. I paid the deposit in full and final settlement, and she accepted it. But under the law she was entitled to the full amount. You cannot counterclaim as it is a penalty, however you could issue a seperate summons. The chance of obtaining any money from a DDS tenant is remote!! So the moral of the story is to secure all deposits for all tenants at all times. Just to add, if you have not secured the deposit and you want to give the tenant notice you cannot use section 21 notice until the deposit is secured.

Poppy
20-03-2009, 10:00 AM
Thank you for the reminder. The members write posts on this matter on this forum almost daily.

I think the moral of the story should be keep up to date with landlord/tenant/property/tax laws and apply them appropriately.

Paul Gibbs
20-03-2009, 10:41 AM
were you still holding the deposit monies from 2004 or did she pay the deposit over when the new agreement was signed in Feb?

fallenlord
20-03-2009, 16:33 PM
I thought other Landlords should be aware of the Deposit compensation scheme. Failing to secure a tenants deposit will result in compensation being paid to the tenant of 3 times the deposit plus their deposit returned. Even if you have a tenant that was in occupation prior to April 2007 and you issue a new lease for any reason, you MUST secure their deposit. Failure to do so will result in compensation having to be paid.

I had a tenant that started their tenancy in February 2004. In August 2008 I wanted to increase the rent and she asked for a new lease so she could go to the DSS and claim the rent increase. I issued a new lease. It was to expire on the 19th Febraury 2009. On the 14th November she gave me 2 weeks notice. I said she could vacate but I didn't know at what cost, it depended on how long it would take to re-let the flat. She asked for her deposit to be returned but as I did not let the flat until February I said I had been severely out of pocket to the tune of £1500 and that I would settle for her deposit £380 in exchange for the £1500 owing. She seeked legal advice and on the 3 times compensation rule, claimed that as I had not secured her deposit in August she was entitled to her deposit and the compensation. I paid the deposit in full and final settlement, and she accepted it. But under the law she was entitled to the full amount. You cannot counterclaim as it is a penalty, however you could issue a seperate summons. The chance of obtaining any money from a DDS tenant is remote!! So the moral of the story is to secure all deposits for all tenants at all times. Just to add, if you have not secured the deposit and you want to give the tenant notice you cannot use section 21 notice until the deposit is secured.

Its a shame that you paid up. Even after the tenant took the legal advise, if youd registered the deposit before she took you to court then you wouldnt have had to pay her any compensation and you could have claimed the (now registered) deposit to compensate yourself.

pfduk
20-03-2009, 17:28 PM
were you still holding the deposit monies from 2004 or did she pay the deposit over when the new agreement was signed in Feb?

I was still holding the deposit from 2004.

pfduk
20-03-2009, 17:31 PM
Its a shame that you paid up. If youd registered the deposit before she took you to court then you wouldnt have had to pay her any compensation and you could have claimed the (now registered) deposit to compensate yourself.

I didn't go to court. She went to citizens advice, they wrote to me claiming compensation and the deposit returned. As such I paid the deposit but in full and final settlement of her claim...not mine. They somehow missed that fact and when they noticed they went mad, writing to me and threatening that they would put in a counterclaim for the compensation. We know...well hope so that they can't do that and that I should be successful in any claim, but whats the point against a DSS person?

fallenlord
21-03-2009, 09:48 AM
I didn't go to court. She went to citizens advice, they wrote to me claiming compensation and the deposit returned. As such I paid the deposit but in full and final settlement of her claim...not mine. They somehow missed that fact and when they noticed they went mad, writing to me and threatening that they would put in a counterclaim for the compensation. We know...well hope so that they can't do that and that I should be successful in any claim, but whats the point against a DSS person?

In my opinion the CAB do a very good job of twisting things, and they are certainly far from being a great fountain of knowledge. Provided the deposit is registered before court action begins then the tenant cannot seek the 3 x compensation.

I dont suppose you paid this by cheque and can still cancel it....?

hairyb
21-03-2009, 10:14 AM
In my opinion the CAB do a very good job of twisting things, and they are certainly far from being a great fountain of knowledge. Provided the deposit is registered before court action begins then the tenant cannot seek the 3 x compensation.

I dont suppose you paid this by cheque and can still cancel it....?

Hi

This seems interesting

Could you point me to the legislation that says retrospective compliance is ok ? I can find nothing other than the landlord has 14 days to register the deposit.

Many thanks

mind the gap
21-03-2009, 10:26 AM
Hi

This seems interesting

Could you point me to the legislation that says retrospective compliance is ok ? I can find nothing other than the landlord has 14 days to register the deposit.

Many thanks

The general consensus on this forum over the last few weeks/months at least, seems to be that late compliance (ie before the Court hearing) generally protects the LL being whacked with the 3x penalty, but there is nothing to stop the T going ahead with his claim. I think I am right in saying that some judges have gone ahead (despite LL's late compliance) and awarded against the LL anyway. After all, the offence still stands). The only thing which seesm to prevent the T claiming is when LL returns the deposit in full before the hearing.

Different judges seem to be interpreting a very badly drafted piece of legislation differently.

I'm sorry I don't have any cases to cite.

fallenlord
21-03-2009, 10:29 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1134202/Relief-court-ends-student-tenant-scam.html

hello, this is the case I had in mind

pfduk
21-03-2009, 10:41 AM
In my opinion the CAB do a very good job of twisting things, and they are certainly far from being a great fountain of knowledge. Provided the deposit is registered before court action begins then the tenant cannot seek the 3 x compensation.

I dont suppose you paid this by cheque and can still cancel it....?

I understand that the law states 'unpaid'. therefore if it is paid prior to trial it should be correctly interpreted. (Badly written law).

No, I paid by direct transfer and got her to send me confirmation and a full and final settlement of her claim, so there shouldn't be any come-backs. I can still issue a claim against her...but then again whats the point, she doesn't have any money.

Poppy
21-03-2009, 10:52 AM
If you think you have an actionable claim against this person, you really ought to slap a CCJ against their name. Otherwise they come up smelling of roses elsewhere.

nick..
21-03-2009, 21:53 PM
Its a shame that you paid up. Even after the tenant took the legal advise, if youd registered the deposit before she took you to court then you wouldnt have had to pay her any compensation and you could have claimed the (now registered) deposit to compensate yourself.

Oh god it's like the blind leading the blind :rolleyes:

You can't just put the deposit into a scheme when it suits you, especially on the eve of being taken to court

The deposit has to be put into an approved scheme and the tenant notified o which scheme it's in within 14 days of the tenancy starting. Fail to do this and you will have to pay 3 months rent in compensation and the deposit back in full. Your rights to evict are also diminished

I don't know why I'm bothering to help you out, if you aren't aware of the laws around this sort of thing, christ knows how bad you are at other aspects of being a landlord


If you think you have an actionable claim against this person, you really ought to slap a CCJ against their name. Otherwise they come up smelling of roses elsewhere.

Shame there is no way for tenants to get a CCJ against a landlord who has failed abysmally to follow the law around deposits, or get a blackmark against them on some sort of central register as a warning to future tenants

There isn't yet anyway

jta
22-03-2009, 11:27 AM
Oh god it's like the blind leading the blind

You can't just put the deposit into a scheme when it suits you, especially on the eve of being taken to court Quite a few Judges have taken a different view

The deposit has to be put into an approved scheme and the tenant notified o which scheme it's in within 14 days of the tenancy starting. Fail to do this and you will have to pay 3 months rent in compensation and the deposit back in full. Your rights to evict are also diminished only where serving a S21 is concerned.

I don't know why I'm bothering to help you out, if you aren't aware of the laws around this sort of thing, christ knows how bad you are at other aspects of being a landlord

The whole of the discussions on 'deposit protection' shows just how badly drafted the law is.

Nick, if you have your eyesight back, why don't you read some, pay particular attention to those written by Jeffrey, Agent 46, Paul Gibbs and other legal people.

Borat
23-03-2009, 08:58 AM
In my opinion the CAB do a very good job of twisting things, and they are certainly far from being a great fountain of knowledge. Provided the deposit is registered before court action begins then the tenant cannot seek the 3 x compensation.

I dont suppose you paid this by cheque and can still cancel it....?

Heard this rubbish before.... usually before the 'fountain of knowledge' which usually is the soon to be poorer landlord. I used to work for the CAB as volunteer and can confirm that it is a really good service. The information is not given 'off the cuff' and is all backed up by a substantial information system. OBVIOUSLY.... being staffed by volunteers without law degrees the information is at a more basic level than what you would hope to recieve from a solicitor but unless you have evidence to back up your stupid claims of twisted legislation I would kindly suggest you stop annoying me sir!! Hit a sore point there.. sorry :)

jta
23-03-2009, 12:16 PM
Borat.What's your problem, don't you consider LL's to be citizens? From your attitude in that last post I'd think you class them as an enemy. The number of times we've heard of CAB giving out stupid advice is legion. What do you call a basic level of information, either it's right or it's wrong. If it's wrong it can cause a lot of grief, not only for the LL but for the tenant too.

fallenlord
23-03-2009, 17:26 PM
Oh god it's like the blind leading the blind :rolleyes:

You can't just put the deposit into a scheme when it suits you, especially on the eve of being taken to court

The deposit has to be put into an approved scheme and the tenant notified o which scheme it's in within 14 days of the tenancy starting. Fail to do this and you will have to pay 3 months rent in compensation and the deposit back in full. Your rights to evict are also diminished

I don't know why I'm bothering to help you out, if you aren't aware of the laws around this sort of thing, christ knows how bad you are at other aspects of being a landlord



Shame there is no way for tenants to get a CCJ against a landlord who has failed abysmally to follow the law around deposits, or get a blackmark against them on some sort of central register as a warning to future tenants

There isn't yet anyway


Oh dear it it does look as if Ive ruffled your feathers.

Im not going to enter into a mud slinging match but I am fully aware of all the implications of the Housing Act. What you seem to not be aware of is the Court Action taken since then. Perhaps you need to look at all the facts before "helping me out" again...

fallenlord
23-03-2009, 17:39 PM
Heard this rubbish before.... usually before the 'fountain of knowledge' which usually is the soon to be poorer landlord. I used to work for the CAB as volunteer and can confirm that it is a really good service. The information is not given 'off the cuff' and is all backed up by a substantial information system. OBVIOUSLY.... being staffed by volunteers without law degrees the information is at a more basic level than what you would hope to recieve from a solicitor but unless you have evidence to back up your stupid claims of twisted legislation I would kindly suggest you stop annoying me sir!! Hit a sore point there.. sorry :)

Sorry? You visit a forum and expect everyone to agree with you? I think you need to learn some patience...

Yes, this is "really good service" if your the tenant whos got away with not paying their rent, and gets the deposit back too. But I do wonder if you were an honest landlord who had lost out because of some "volunteer without law degrees" then would you still think so? I think really good service would be to advise the tenants of their rights but to also inform the landlord what they can do to retain the deposit and avoid any compensation claim. Surely you can agree with that?

And for the record, my local CAB centre are useless - I think its because they are all volunteers without law degrees

Borat
23-03-2009, 20:50 PM
Borat.What's your problem, don't you consider LL's to be citizens? From your attitude in that last post I'd think you class them as an enemy. The number of times we've heard of CAB giving out stupid advice is legion. What do you call a basic level of information, either it's right or it's wrong. If it's wrong it can cause a lot of grief, not only for the LL but for the tenant too.

I do consider landlords citizens and have lots of dealings with them every day. In my experience most landlords are great a pleasure to deal with and very helpful.

As for the information provided by CAB, in relation to this particular case, it is likely the tenant was told their deposit should have been protected (different opinions on this subject I'm sure- possibly controversial maybe but certainly not 'wrong advice'). They are unlikely to have gone further into the legal complexities and conflicting case law and asked for the deposit back.... the post is a bit confusing but it would appear the landlord paid back the deposit on the strength of this letter. The option was their, if the landlord disagreed, to proceed to a hearing and let a district judge decide??

As for wrong info... If this is as huge as it is suggested why has this not been challenged more. CAB like any organisation has a responsibility for the information it provides and would encourage it to be challenged!

I do appear to have got your goat jta and i'm sorry for that... never my intention.

Borat
23-03-2009, 20:55 PM
Yes, this is "really good service" if your the tenant whos got away with not paying their rent, and gets the deposit back too. But I do wonder if you were an honest landlord who had lost out because of some "volunteer without law degrees" then would you still think so? I think really good service would be to advise the tenants of their rights but to also inform the landlord what they can do to retain the deposit and avoid any compensation claim. Surely you can agree with that?

And for the record, my local CAB centre are useless - I think its because they are all volunteers without law degrees

I agree completely with that.... and i actually do it on a regular basis. Protect the deposit??

mind the gap
23-03-2009, 21:05 PM
As for the information provided by CAB, in relation to this particular case, it is likely the tenant was told their deposit should have been protected (different opinions on this subject I'm sure- possibly controversial maybe but certainly not 'wrong advice'). They are unlikely to have gone further into the legal complexities and conflicting case law and asked for the deposit back.... the post is a bit confusing but it would appear the landlord paid back the deposit on the strength of this letter. The option was their, if the landlord disagreed, to proceed to a hearing and let a district judge decide??



If you give advice at the CAB in this incoherent, rambling fashion, then I'm not surprised tenants are confused. I have read this part of your answer twice now, yet I am none the wiser as to what you are trying to say.

Borat
23-03-2009, 21:13 PM
If you give advice at the CAB in this incoherent, rambling fashion, then I'm not surprised tenants are confused. I have read this part of your answer twice now, yet I am none the wiser as to what you are trying to say.

I like people who say it as they see it so i won't get upset.

I'll try again. From what i understand in relation to this thread:

1- Tenant visited CAB to get the return of their deposit
2- CAB informed tenant that the deposit should have been protected and wrote to the landlord to inform landlord of this.
3- Landlord paid back deposit on strength of this letter choosing this instead of proceeding to court and is upset.
4- There does not appear to be any wrong information given out by CAB

sherifffatman
23-03-2009, 21:42 PM
I think the OP was just a bit upset at having got themselves into this situation by not being on top of the current nanny state legislation.

Had he gone to the CAB and asked their assistance, would they have advised him to protect the deposit asap ie before potential court proceedings & written him a letter to the tenant stating that they should pay the full amount of rent owing since the 3xcompo was no longer relevant?

I think not.

It is a problem of equality and evenhandedness and not presuming that every landlord is some sort of fat-walleted Rachman as the Govt seems to be intent on doing.
Most are honest business people trying to provide a quality service whilst wrestling with slippery statutory instruments.

Borat
23-03-2009, 21:59 PM
I most certainly hope they would. To start proceedings without giving the landlord chance to comply with the legislation would be against logic. At the very least I would hope the landlord could expect a letter before action if the tenant had visited CAB. If the landlord had visited CAB i should certainly hope of course he would be informed of the current legislation.

fallenlord
23-03-2009, 21:59 PM
I like people who say it as they see it so i won't get upset.

I'll try again. From what i understand in relation to this thread:

1- Tenant visited CAB to get the return of their deposit
2- CAB informed tenant that the deposit should have been protected and wrote to the landlord to inform landlord of this.
3- Landlord paid back deposit on strength of this letter choosing this instead of proceeding to court and is upset.
4- There does not appear to be any wrong information given out by CAB

Maybe not wrong information, but very limited. Its a shame that there was no 2 (a) - where the CAB, as a body funded primarily from the taxpayer, didnt write to the landlord advising that if the deposit was protected then there would be no 3 x claim. There was, though, a point 5: that the tenant, who shouldnt have got away with it, got away with it

Borat
24-03-2009, 16:50 PM
Maybe not wrong information, but very limited. Its a shame that there was no 2 (a) - where the CAB, as a body funded primarily from the taxpayer, didnt write to the landlord advising that if the deposit was protected then there would be no 3 x claim. There was, though, a point 5: that the tenant, who shouldnt have got away with it, got away with it

Giving the advice suggested in your '2 a' would be incorrect. I fail to see how in this case the CAB have done anything a solicitor (funded most likely by client claiming legal help... taxpayer money- not that it's to relevant) would have done differently. To advise both sides of any case is a conflict of interests and doesn't work.

The point 5 is valid except the tenant got away with nothing other than their rights. Without arguing the rights and wrongs of the legislation (it's a badly written peice of rubbish- we all agree there) the tenant took advantage of the system in place to ask the landlord for the deposit back.

If the landlord felt this was wrong, or that he is still owed money, the landlord also has the option of continuing action against ex T.