PDA

View Full Version : Tenancy Deposit Scheme



sam_thu_man
06-11-2009, 10:05 AM
I have question re: TDS

If the LL just pays the deposit (full amount) to the T at the end of the AST,despite any minor damage caused to the property by the T, then can the T still sue the LL for 3x the deposit amount on the basis that the LL had not protected it with any one of the 3 schemes?

If the answer is yes, then is this not a way for unscrupulous tenants to "make" money for themselves on account of the LL's lack of experience. How would the courts view such a scenario?

Thank you.

jeffrey
06-11-2009, 10:28 AM
No, T can't.

Lawcruncher
06-11-2009, 19:22 PM
It all turns on whether in the legislation "tenant" includes "former tenant".

Snorkerz
06-11-2009, 21:24 PM
It all turns on whether in the legislation "tenant" includes "former tenant". Can I get a bit of clarity from the legal-eagles?

I thought it was not possible to commence a claim for the 3x only. I thought the claim had to be to get the deposit back PLUS the 3x. If that is true then the OP would definately be answered NO because he deposit has been repaid and so he can not claim for a deposit that's already been repaid.

Lawcruncher
06-11-2009, 22:03 PM
Can I get a bit of clarity from the legal-eagles?

I thought it was not possible to commence a claim for the 3x only. I thought the claim had to be to get the deposit back PLUS the 3x. If that is true then the OP would definately be answered NO because he deposit has been repaid and so he can not claim for a deposit that's already been repaid.

Clarity and section 214 of the Housing Act 2004 do not go together. Only God and the draftsman understand it and even God is not sure.

This is what the section says:

Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits

(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—

(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or

(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—

(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or

(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,

as the case may be.

(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—

(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.

(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.

(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

It would seem that if a deposit has been paid and the requirements not complied with that that is all that is needed to be able to make a claim. Repayment of the deposit does not appear to affect the right to make a claim. If the court is satisfied that the requirements have not been complied with it must make:

1. An order requiring the deposit to be repaid or paid into a scheme

and

2. An order requiring the landlord to pay the tenant a sum equal to three times the deposit.

It seems that the court must make an order requiring the deposit to be dealt with as mentioned in 1 even if it has been repaid, which is of course a nonsense.

Snorkerz
06-11-2009, 23:38 PM
(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—

(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or

so, in the case of a deposit which has been repaid to the tenant/applicant the court must order the applicant to repay it to themselves.

sam_thu_man
10-11-2009, 22:03 PM
This is confusing, can the tenant still sue the landlord for 3x the deposit amount even if landlord pays back all of the deposit amount to tenant?

What is the definitive answer - yes or no

Please help.

aboylikedave
11-11-2009, 08:10 AM
I have question re: TDS

If the answer is yes, then is this not a way for unscrupulous tenants to "make" money for themselves on account of the LL's lack of experience. How would the courts view such a scenario?

Thank you.
Sorry this is not answering your question, but I would remove this aspect from your head 'taking advantage of LLs lack of experience.'! I know what you mean but in renting out the property the LL is setting up as a business and entering into a situation which comes with serious legal responsibilities and it is up to him or her to either find out about them or not rent out the property.

But I know what you mean is take advantage of the situation even if they have not been inconvenienced,

havensRus
11-11-2009, 08:29 AM
This is confusing, can the tenant still sue the landlord for 3x the deposit amount even if landlord pays back all of the deposit amount to tenant?

What is the definitive answer - yes or no

Please help.

Just curious - are you the tenant or landlord?

Q: Why would the tenant want to sue the LL if the deposit has been repaid in full?
A: ?

havensRus
11-11-2009, 08:35 AM
Sorry this is not answering your question, but I would remove this aspect from your head 'taking advantage of LLs lack of experience.'! I know what you mean but in renting out the property the LL is setting up as a business and entering into a situation which comes with serious legal responsibilities and it is up to him or her to either find out about them or not rent out the property.


Hmmnn - a lot of "recent" accidental landlords had no intention of setting up businesses. They just needed to cover their mortgages whilst not being able to sell etc.etc. what do you say to those then? read the Housing Act cover to cover or let the house get repo'd?

The UK is probably the one country in Europe where private housing is soooooo regulated, and where landlords are being smothered by red tape, fleeced by tenants with impunity and hampered from getting justice by the very justice system that is supposed to "bring justice to everyone".

SE1 Tenant
11-11-2009, 09:07 AM
Hardly the case. UK is the only country in Europe where unscrupulous LLs systematically take advantage and abuse their tenants strategies ranging from neglect of repair/maintenence, ignorance of tenants privacy, theft of deposits, not mentioning all these cases of flats/homes that have been "professionally cleaned" and still look like dumps but when the tenant leave the LL still have the stomage to request the tenant to pay for a cleaning etc etc etc. List is endless All happening as tenants haven't got effective legal tools to protect their rights or reclaim what is theirs. There are several studies comparing property/rental markets in different countryis on this that shows that in the UK the protection is so heavily biased in LLs favour - and they/you have learnt and got used to abuse this bias to the extreme.

I know many people that have been so sick and tired of this situation and beeing repetedly screwed over and abused by LLs and Agents (perhaps the worst offenders) that it has tainted their experience so negative about this country so they have decided to leave for a better and more hassle free life elsewhere. Personally I'm after 11 years pushed to the limit and am considering the same. This despite I have paid everysingle rent payment on time during my time here, always kept the flat in perfect condition (several expensive central London flats with severa LLs/agents - same story everytime). It is nothing less that shame full that you have this situation in this contry - both that it is possible due to poor regulation and weak legal protection but also that there are so many of you LLs/agents out there that have got into the buy-to-let business and are so incompetent so that the only way you are able to make money out if it is to abuse and screw over your tenants - whos livelyhood you depend on.

Shame on you! You are the worst ambassadors this country have!

sam_thu_man
11-11-2009, 10:07 AM
Just curious - are you the tenant or landlord?

Q: Why would the tenant want to sue the LL if the deposit has been repaid in full?
A: ?

Im the landlord.

Q: Why would the tenant want to sue the LL if the deposit has been repaid in full?
A: so that the tenant can make money out of the situation - 3x deposit amount - so there is a motive for an unscruplous tenant to sue the landlord.....

sam_thu_man
11-11-2009, 10:09 AM
Hmmnn - a lot of "recent" accidental landlords had no intention of setting up businesses. They just needed to cover their mortgages whilst not being able to sell etc.etc. what do you say to those then? read the Housing Act cover to cover or let the house get repo'd?

The UK is probably the one country in Europe where private housing is soooooo regulated, and where landlords are being smothered by red tape, fleeced by tenants with impunity and hampered from getting justice by the very justice system that is supposed to "bring justice to everyone".

Agree 100%

SE1 Tenant
11-11-2009, 10:46 AM
For exactly the same reason all the scumbag LLs and LAs in this country have systematically have abused their Ts over and over and over again:

Because they can!

And most likely becase the LL / LA have tread the T as **** and done all they can to abuse thier position throughout the tenancy. If there has been a good professional relationship and service delivered from the LL / LA during the tenancy I cannot see any T that would go through the hassle to exercise this formal legal right (unlike LLs / LAs that grab and steal all they can from and abuse their Ts)

And I hope many many Ts are taking the opportunity to do so if they have experienced LLs / LAs that have abused them throughout the tenancy.

The problem is not about too much regulation. There is to little, not effective and bad regulation that is the problem!

Again LLs / LAs are this country's pest and worst ambassadors!