UK Landlord Forum / Life

Bad or Stupid, I'm not trying to defend the LL. Either follow the law or be prepared to be punished, there are no excuses. What I'm trying to say is, and lets use your example to drinking and driving. Is it fair that if a driver is caught drinking and driving by the police, when they are punished and fined, the money goes to the passengers that were in the car at the time. No, fine me, punish me, I made a mistake - but why should the fine go to my passengers?
   

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 17, 2015, 11:14:58 AMI still can't get it. The law was broken and a financial punishment is established by a Judge, I think it's fair to describe this financial punishment as a fine. Up to here I have no arguments. What I'm unable to comprehend is why this fine is paid to the tenant??

Because the Tenant would need to bring the action, and there has to be an 'incentive' for them to even bother. Most would not bother, they would just feel as though something very unjust has happened.

As I said... I can't see that £500 would be enough for someone to instigate Court proceedings, therefore, most would simply give-up and throw their hands in the air, therefore the legislation would not be working. If a Tenant is forced (and that's what it is) to go to Court they should get something (more than just their deposit back) for their trouble.

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 17, 2015, 11:14:58 AMA fine should be paid to the court, a charity, some form of insurance pot...I don't know, but NOT to the tenant.

This is a bit silly, really, I've got to be direct. Who decides where it goes? An Insurance pot for who? What are we building here?

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 10:17:31 AMWhere in the legislation is there a section that protects a landlord from unscrupulous tenants who are simply using the law for financial gain?

I have to emphatically agree with Riptide... it's the same legislation that protects Tenants and Landlords.

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 17, 2015, 11:54:18 AM
Bad or Stupid, I'm not trying to defend the LL. Either follow the law or be prepared to be punished, there are no excuses. What I'm trying to say is, and lets use your example to drinking and driving. Is it fair that if a driver is caught drinking and driving by the police, when they are punished and fined, the money goes to the passengers that were in the car at the time. No, fine me, punish me, I made a mistake - but why should the fine go to my passengers?

Passengers aren't really the right people.  Give the money the DD crashes into, or almost crashes into would be fairer.

You quote "Because the Tenant would need to bring the action, and there has to be an 'incentive' for them to even bother. Most would not bother, they would just feel as though something very unjust has happened"

What when the deposit has been returned without quibble!
THERE is nothing UNJUST as he/she had his money back.

The intention of this regulation was to ensure the tenant GOT THE DEPOSIT back hassle free!  In this instance the tenant had "his" money back.

The tenant did not loose anything, if a fine is to be paid the greedy tenant should not benefit.

Put all the "fine" money in a pot to help those tenants who have been ripped off my landlords!!
Dont charge court fees for bringing any claims, make it free, incentive enough for any tenant to bring a claim, when the fine is charged 1x 2 or 3x the money goes to the "pot" to assist tenants who genuinely are left OUT OF POCKET!

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 12:14:37 PM
What when the deposit has been returned without quibble!

Totally, 100%, irrelevant.  The law has been in since 2007. 

What about the speeder who doesn't run someone over?

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 12:14:37 PM
THERE is nothing UNJUST as he/she had his money back.

You don't seem to grasp that the legislation is in place to protect all.  This can include LL's that go bankrupt for example where the T would be able to get their money back.  Would seem unjust if a LL didn't follow the law, went bankrupt and took the deposit money with them.  It's just that on this occasion, from your view, apart from ignoring the law everything went swimmingly so again we are back to the optional deposit protection, which it totally is not.

You need to man up, accept that you broke the law, accept the penalty for doing so (not that you agree with it at all) and make sure that you don't do it again.

I got a £60 'fine' for parking at a retail park and leaving the site.  There was no damage caused, I didn't lose them revenue, I see this as unjust/unfair and the money would have gone (I didn't pay it) to some parking company.  Again, money for old rope for those foolish enough to pay these speculative invoices.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 12:14:37 PM
The intention of this regulation was to ensure the tenant GOT THE DEPOSIT back hassle free!  In this instance the tenant had "his" money back.

In that case, ignore legislation and just continue what you are doing as it sounds like the tenant is in safe hands.

The last deposit I took probably took an hour from start to finish to protect and administer.  This includes registering it online, travelling time to the property to get the PI signed and another visit back to the property to get the PI resigned once the tenancy went periodic.  An hour to save a possible claim at some point in the next 6 years.  Seems like a no brainer.

You say in your first posts that you have no defence as you 'forgot to' protect the deposit.  Did you genuinely forget to protect it or did you not know that it had to be protected within 30 days of receipt? 

Ultimately who do you actually think in the long run is going to suffer, where a tenant is awarded monies. And I am talking about situations where it is clear that the landlord simply did not know to register the deposit, did not withhold ANY of the deposit, returned the deposit within say 7 days, and was then SUED.

In my opinion the Tenants or future tenants.

There must be a stream of genuine landlords out there who have been hit with these fines.

In future, I will NOT charge a deposit, but I will be asking for two maybe three months rental in advance (probably not affordable to most!).
I will not offer the property for rental at a lower open market rental !
I will do stringent security checks on any prospective tenant including asking for references from previous landlords!

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
And I am talking about situations where it is clear that the landlord simply did not know to register the deposit, did not withhold ANY of the deposit, returned the deposit within say 7 days, and was then SUED.

I see where you are coming from now.  You want deposit protection legislation to apply to professionals and career landlords but not the landlords who don't have a clue what they are doing and have done no research (and I mean 20 minutes would have bought this issue to light) whatsoever prior to becoming one and who are in it to 'just make a bit of easy money'. 

To say you didn't know about legislation surrounding being a landlord thats been around since 2007 prior to undertaking your role is way more embarrassing than saying you just forgot.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
Ultimately who do you actually think in the long run is going to suffer

Suffer from deposit protection?  Noone, the tenant will be protected and the landlord has to do very little to fulfill their obligations.  There should be no suffering from either parties if the very simple process is followed.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
There must be a stream of genuine landlords out there who have been hit with these fines

Genuine landlords?  Genuine, bonefide landlords are the ones who rent houses out, in the correct manner and follow the correct legislation and their legal obligations.  Gas safety certs, income tax, EPC's, repairs, deposits etc etc. 

This is not a fine that arrives in the post or from a knock on the door, it's well know about and totally 100% avoidable.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
In future, I will NOT charge a deposit, but I will be asking for two maybe three months rental in advance (probably not affordable to most!).

If it looks like a deposit, smells like a deposit and would be used for deposit like purposes it needs protected. 
Just take a deposit and protect it, it takes less than 10 minutes to do online.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 01:01:09 PM
I will do stringent security checks on any prospective tenant including asking for references from previous landlords!

Should be standard anyway.

I have stopped bothering to take the deposit at all as it's simply not worth the hassle in my experience.  I charge an Admin fee to cover my contracts, adverts etc.

What amount is the admin. fee generally?

Does it help serve as a means to get you on an even keel again in situations, heaven forbid, where £1,000 worth of damage has been caused?

It can't be the same amount as what you'd normally charge for a deposit, surely, no-one would be renting your places?

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 12:14:37 PMWhat when the deposit has been returned without quibble!
THERE is nothing UNJUST as he/she had his money back.

Part of the legislation is the Landlord pro-actively going to the Tenant and telling them their deposit is protected... reassuring them that it's safe and held (with custodial schemes anyway) by an objective third party.

Whether it's then given back in full, no quibbles, is definitely a big part of it - I agree - but it's not everything that the legislation covers. I can't stress strongly enough that - in your instance - you failed to comply with the legislation and that is all we know. A Landlord may claim they forgot, or were ignorant, or were too busy... but the reality may well be that they fully intended to steal it, only could not do so because they found out that their Tenants were more savvy than the previous ones and they ended up returning the deposit in full, no quibbles, in the hope there would be no further consequences.

Do you see where I'm coming from? The only thing that truly matters is the fact the legislation is not adhered to. Excuses as to why it was not are simply that... excuses.

As I have previously stated, I accept that the law is in place to protect tenants from landlords using any excuse not to return a deposit. However the principle objectives of tenancy deposit protection schemes are:

1.to safeguard deposits;
2.to provide a fair and effective mechanism to resolve disputes;
3.to encourage tenants and landlords to reach clear agreements before tenancies begin on the condition of property.

Fortunately Judges have the ability to award 1x 2x or 3x and in situations where a genuine mistake has been made one would hope that 1x would be awarded, in the SPIRIT of the scheme.

And once awarded (if a deposit had already been returned and PRIOR TO any mention of the deposit not being secured in a scheme by the tenant) the money should go into a "pot" to help tenants or landlords or whoever. This is NOT the tenants money afterall they already had their deposit money back! And like I said earlier, no court fees for tenants to issue so EVERY incentive to file, for the benefit of the community as a whole not themselves.

For the record I can assure you it was NOT, nor would it EVER be my intention to steal from them or anyone else, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW !

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 02:19:55 PM
For the record I can assure you it was NOT, nor would it EVER be my intention to steal from them or anyone else, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW !

We are aware of that.  You are a 'genuine' landlord, you did what you thought was right and probably treated your tenants as tenants should be treated.  It's unfortunate that you didn't comply with the legislation.

I know it seems like we are giving you a hard time for a genuine mistake/lack of knowledge but the laws and test cases that have gone before provide no wriggle room in the slightest, to anyone, professionals, novices, good landlords, bad landlords.  It's a blanket decision with blanket penalties and it catches alot of good people unawares.  Including LL's who entrusted an agent to comply aswell, that would be an even bigger kick in the teeth. But only the once I'd hope.

The only way to avoid it is to comply. 

Well all I can reiterate is thankfully Judges have the discretion to award 1, 2x or 3x
It is not mandatory to award 3x.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 02:45:57 PM
Well all I can reiterate is thankfully Judges have the discretion to award 1, 2x or 3x
It is not mandatory to award 3x.

Correct but that's plus the deposit aswell so more like 2x 3x or 4x. 

Are you going to court or going to try and settle out of? 

We are going around in circles.
Can the for's explain to me in very simple terms please,
why is the tenant entitled to anymore than their money back, plus just to be extra fair, any interest that might have accrued.
We've ascertained the law had been broken by the LL,and we've agreed the LL should be punished, but why should the tenant profit?
I'm honestly unable to relate the two things. I'm not being difficult? I just can't see the tenants entitlement.

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 02:19:55 PMFor the record I can assure you it was NOT, nor would it EVER be my intention to steal from them or anyone else, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW !

Absolutely. Other Landlords do. Awful, ain't it?

How is anyone able to tell which are which? Well, the ones who've protected the deposit are kinda ruled out of suspicion.

As ED-209 said, in the original Robocop - "Please protect this deposit. You have thirty days to comply."

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 17, 2015, 03:06:48 PMCan the for's explain to me in very simple terms please,
why is the tenant entitled to anymore than their money back, plus just to be extra fair, any interest that might have accrued.

Can you please accept that I'm also not trying to be difficult when I say - "why does it matter?" - the law is as it is. An academic debate about it on a forum like this ain't gonna change the world. The best we can hope for is to keep on protecting those deposits and, thereby, keep on protecting ourselves from those nasty opportunistic Tenants who are out to make some money out of old rope... we thwart them at the first hurdle when we do our job correctly.

For those that forget, can't be bothered, got sidetracked, <insert other pertinent excuse here>... we'll always be on-hand to advise them on where they stand, and why... we also do not do it in a smug way, but we remain baffled, perplexed and perturbed as to why Landlords are still being caught-out by this coming up to 10 years (in a few years) since this legislation has been in place... our suspicion is that there are simply some lazy Landlords out there (and some chancers who will likely only get burned once).

No problem with that... ain't Landlording for the lazy, after all? I mean, I've - basically - been living off the efforts of others since 2012.

"Correct but that's plus the deposit aswell so more like 2x 3x or 4x.  "

in this instance the deposit was returned anyway, hence my reference to 1x etc


Legislation may well have been in force since 2007 and more recently been altered changing from a mandatory 3x to a discretionary 1x 2x or 3x for monetary awardments, I believe it was changed to limit the financial costs for genine "rookie" landlords. I just hope that if a landlord who is taken to court who can show through correspondence that it was a genuine (first time and last time)mistake is only punished 1x.  I also maintain any awardment should not go to the tenant who suffered no loss but put it in a fund to help tenants or landlords for whatever their genuine needs!

Quote from: Sltj on March 17, 2015, 03:44:18 PMI just hope that if a landlord who is taken to court who can show through correspondence that it was a genuine (first time and last time)mistake is only punished 1x.

I'd also expect this to be the case.

It is important that Landlords do realise it's not a mandatory 3x - as I said earlier in this thread (a long time ago) - "The Tenant may think (or want you to think) that it's a definite 3x, plus costs, plus interest... but it isn't..." - otherwise many will panic unnecessarily and some may jump off a bridge!

A settlement is always advised by me, still.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 17, 2015, 03:14:14 PMThe best we can hope for is to keep on protecting those deposits and, thereby, keep on protecting ourselves from those nasty opportunistic Tenants who are out to make some money out of old rope... we thwart them at the first hurdle when we do our job correctly.

So then it is agreed that the tenant is being nasty and opportunistic. I'll go along with that. I'll go along with the LL is wrong and that there is no excuse. But I'll never accept that the tenant morally has the right to take this unreasonable and irrational action against the LL and profit.

I wish the OP good luck. Learn from your mistake

Well, my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek... the Tenant has the absolute right to pursue this course of action, but any Landlord is going to feel hard-done-by if money is requested from them that they don't think they should hand over. If it's described in law as a course of action that is open to the Tenant I can't say they're unreasonable and irrational... I probably would if they didn't take that course of action as they are assured of some 'free' money... seems rather daft of them not to take advantage of it when money is undoubtedly tight these days.

I don't think you can say it's moral or reasonable of a Landlord to not protect a Tenant's deposit... even if it is returned without quibble... but there are posters on here that seem to think that's kind of OK (I'm glad the law says I am correct on this one) as no-one got hurt / no-one died.

I think you are missing the point entirely!

Law broken = penalty in terms of a fine - accepted

The monetary fine should NOT go to the tenant who has lost nothing (assuming the deposit was returned).


And like I said earlier, in the long run it will be the tenants who suffer - probably those tenants that cant afford TWO MONTHS RENT up front (thereby avoiding taking a deposit).

So continue to encourage the those tenants to chase "free money" as you refer to you it, and lets see the fall out in years to come.

I'm not missing any point, at all.

I understand this whole concept more than you could believe. I think you are flogging a dead horse, that's all. The world is as it is, you won't change that. You just have to accept it. If you got Riptide and myself to agree that these Tenants weren't damaged in any way and shouldn't have 'compensation'... well, who cares? It changes your situation not one bit. It changes no-one's situations a jot.

I will never be sued for not protecting a deposit. I will never have a Tenant who's got me over a barrel. You won't ever again either.

What you need to be doing right now (and I presume you are) is either preparing for Court and hoping for 1x, or offering settlement to your ex-Tenants... or stick your head in the ground and hope they don't follow through with their threat to take you to Court. What you don't need to be doing is having an academic argument about something you cannot change.

Don't rail against people who've tried to assist you because you've cocked-up, that's not right.

I also disagree that Tenants will suffer in the long-run. I think Landlords who fail in their obligations will suffer, just as they should. You seem to be implying that Landlords will stop taking any deposits... I haven't. I doubt Riptide has. The only ones who will look for a way around the system (as you seem to be advocating) are rogues (which you previously claimed you were not). Either stand-up and be counted as a good Landlord who lives up to their obligations (and protect yourself in the meantime) or look for a way to avoid the legislation with an unknown outcome... <buzz> = wrong answer.

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 10:22:52 AM
So continue to encourage the those tenants to chase "free money" as you refer to you it, and lets see the fall out in years to come.

Not encouraging anything, just laying out the facts and then the tenant is following a prescribed course of action.

If a T comes on here and states their deposit hasn't been protected then they are advised of what course of action they can use.
If a LL comes on here says they are doing this for the first time, what do they need to do, it will be impressed on them the importance of following the deposit protection procedure and the implications of not doing it.

If the LL does this the T has no course of action to take as their deposit would have been correctly protected.  It's simple to stop it dead in its tracks.

I agree with you, there are no damages, it shouldn't be called compensation and it's not really a fine.  Maybe it could be called a 'stupid tax'?  Where you'd have to be stupid to end up paying a tenant free money?

The thing is, this thread wouldn't exist and you wouldn't give a jot where the money is going or the process that this all involves if you had just spent 10 minutes online protecting the deposit and issued the PI.  As it is you are embroiled in it, through noones fault apart from your own, it's not the tenants fault, it's not the laws fault and it's not the courts fault.  You don't agree with the process or outcome and I totally get that, it's just at this point you are a passenger on a journey that you don't want to be on.

au contraire I do care very much where this "free money" goes - it should go to help others out! Go into a pot that benefits the whole community not just one person or persons.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

There will be a fall out here in the long run.

"What you don't need to be doing is having an academic argument about something you cannot change."

People change laws by proving sometimes the law can be an arse!

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 12:11:54 PM
People change laws by proving sometimes the law can be an arse!

The law is never going to be changed to accept ignorance as a valid reason to ignore it.

That is not what I meant, but you already knew that !

I can see why the law was introduced. To stop dodgy landlords from refunding deposits. However it's used as a mini-windfall for tenants if they have a landlord that's not aware of this.