UK Landlord Forum / Life

Quote from: CaveDweller on March 18, 2015, 12:44:28 PM
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.

TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN.  It's been around for eight years.  It's not a new phenomenon.  It will be detailed in every single 'first time landlord' guide that anyone would care to read via google.  Having a rental property is a business, you need to have better knowledge of how it all works than that of your tenants.  There will be 1000's of landlords living in bliss, not protecting deposits.  There will be 1000's of tenants who don't know it should be protected.  When the T has greater knowledge than the LL is when it goes 'wrong'

And when the landlords FINE money goes to the Tenant is when it becomes unjust !

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 01:20:23 PM
And when the landlords FINE money goes to the Tenant is when it becomes unjust !

In all cases?

Devil's advocate?

Of course not in all cases

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 12:11:54 PMau contraire I do care very much where this "free money" goes - it should go to help others out!

It is. It is helping the Tenants who were wronged. They will benefit by, possibly, getting a new TV or going on a mini-break, maybe a full-blown holiday. Why anyone else, an unrelated party, should benefit is beyond me.

I think it's OK for us all to agree to disagree on this forum, with no real ill will... I'm still much more interested in how you are handling your current predicament.

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 01:20:23 PMAnd when the landlords FINE money goes to the Tenant is when it becomes unjust !

I reckon you know this ain't a right and proper viewpoint.

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 01:36:54 PM
Devil's advocate?

Of course not in all cases

It's not of course, it just doesn't make sense.

Case 1 - Your landlord knowingly didn't protect the deposit and broke the law = Here is your money Mr T
Case 2 - Your landlord didn't protect the deposit and broke the law = The money has gone into the stupid fund

For clarification purposes:

I posted:

"And when the landlords FINE money goes to the Tenant is when it becomes unjust !"

Response:

"In all cases?"

My response:

"Of course not in all cases"

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 01:47:20 PM
For clarification purposes:

I posted:

"And when the landlords FINE money goes to the Tenant is when it becomes unjust !"

Response:

"In all cases?"

My response:

"Of course not in all cases"

Still doesn't make any sense.  I don't know what distinction or mitigation you are looking for in order to protect a LL or to see this money go elsewhere.

If a deposit has been taken, not protected, then given back at the end of the tenancy with no loss suffered, no damages occurred then I don't get why this should be out of the scope of the law that is in place. 

I then don't get that if it is within the scope of the law then any claim made should go to a random 3rd party. 

If this were the case then no tenant would bring a claim in order to give the money to a 3rd party so the LL would never have to pay into the 'stupid fund' so would therefore just continue to never protect the deposit but instead just hold onto it, circumvent the law and give it back at the end.

Your 'logic' is totally flawed.

Because the spirit of this regulation was

1.to safeguard deposits; DEPOSIT RETURNED
2.to provide a fair and effective mechanism to resolve disputes; NO PROPERTY OR DISPUTE
3.to encourage tenants and landlords to reach clear agreements before tenancies begin on the condition of property. SCHEDULE OF CONDITION/DILAPIDATE PROVIDED. LANDLORD CERTS ALL UP TO DATE Etc

In other words it was put in place to ensure that if there was no reason to withhold a deposit the tenant should receive the deposit back in full.

It was put in place to help mediate with any disputes.

It was put in place to reach agreement with tenants and landlords i.e. by ensuring a schedule of condition prior to occupation and a dilapidation report on vacation.

The legislation was not intended for anything else - it was certainly not brought about to provide tenants with "money for nothing".

On that basis whilst I accept I unintentionally broke the law
The tenant intentionally breaks the spirit and intention of the law.

This is my opinion of which I am entitled.

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 02:16:02 PM
This is my opinion of which I am entitled.

If only you could be a judge on your own case then that might be valid.  Spirit or no spirit.  Compliance or non compliance.  It has an outcome.

Quote from: Sltj on March 18, 2015, 02:16:02 PMOn that basis whilst I accept I unintentionally broke the law
The tenant intentionally breaks the spirit and intention of the law.

Only one party broke the law, though. Your opinion is that the Tenant breaks the spirit and intention of the law... but they did not break the law.

I hope you reach a settlement you can live with... or the Court awards you the 1x that you seem (just my reading of things) you might accept. I think your chances of that are good... but I'd still prefer to settle, either for the 1x (if the Tenant is amenable to that - a bird in the hand and all that) or maybe even less if they are desperate and just want a quick chunk of change from you. I'd not want to risk the Court arriving at 2x by mistake.

I should like to be judge and jury for all landlords in a similar genuine situation.
Spirit or no spirit ? Mines a G and T 

I'm on the neat Baileys. Dunno why... may be the girlie hidden in me... may be just 'cos it's there.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 18, 2015, 05:04:57 PM
I'm on the neat Baileys. Dunno why... may be the girlie hidden in me... may be just 'cos it's there.

Have some respect man.  At least put it over ice.

Jeez, no; I hate that.

SLTJ, you broke a law, intentionally or unintentionally, it makes no difference. This law is also one of the easiest to understand and to comply with.
Saying that, I wish this forum had some type of "like" button as I concur with nearly everything you write. I also reckon on the quiet, so do our two extremely knowledgeable moderators.
I'd like to ask the moderators what they think of this situation, I'll make it brief. My wife had an accident in her car, another driver wasn't looking and went into the back of her. There was no quarrel, the other driver was wrong. Damage to the vehicle was repaired, so in theory the case should have been over. Money is apparently put aside for incidents like this, and common injuries such as whiplash can be claimed very easily, without any arguments.
Easy money really, money for old rope, don't you think? Just because the law exists and that it's easy to execute, doesn't make it right in my books. 

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 19, 2015, 08:24:16 AMI also reckon on the quiet, so do our two extremely knowledgeable moderators.

Just to avoid any lack of clarity... I can assure you, without a shadow of a doubt, I do not agree with the point of view Sltj has.

But this does not mean Sltj cannot hold that view until his, hopefully untimely, demise... I tried my best to explain my PoV and we will agree to disagree. No harm, no foul. I remain much more interested in how things are progressing with the actual situation at hand.

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 19, 2015, 08:24:16 AM
SLTJ, you broke a law, intentionally or unintentionally, it makes no difference. This law is also one of the easiest to understand and to comply with.
Saying that, I wish this forum had some type of "like" button as I concur with nearly everything you write. I also reckon on the quiet, so do our two extremely knowledgeable moderators.

I can't concur.  Prior to becoming a landlord I wasn't a landlord, I knew that sums of money would be given in exchange for a place to live, beyond that I wasn't sure what my other obligations were so I researched what I needed to do.  I found out about the deposit protection (I'd never even heard of the DPS let alone custodial or insurance schemes) amongst other things.  I'm thankful I found out about it then and not got a shock when a claim came in that I knew nothing about.  In my eyes, it is easily avoidable.

Regardless of how 'valid' a claim is (if the law is broken it's valid in my eyes) there will always be people who will accept free money willingly, lying about a car injury, ,committing insurance fraud with a house insurance claim, other accidents etc etc, then there are the people who wouldn't dream of doing it.  It's how the world works.

My word, how frustrating this is. So that I can get on with the rest of my day, please can we agree on just a few things.
1. Not protecting the bond is an inexcusable error by the LL, an error that can so easily be avoided.
2. That the law can not be interpreted, nor is it possible to determine whether the LL was trying to be clever or that it was a genuine mistake, therefore the LL is guilty.
3. That if the T has had the deposit returned, it is wrong for them to then profit from the situation. I'm not saying according to the law they can't, I'm saying it's unreasonable, as in, there is no sensible and honest reason for them to do so, apart from blatant opportunism.
Please agree with me. This has been a very frustrating post. 

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No - It's human nature for some people to do this.  Returning the deposit is not the issue.  Protecting it in the first place is.

I despair, RIPTIDE, I despair!

I'm not saying it's not morally right, but it is a right.  Some people have no morals to the detriment of a LL.   

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 19, 2015, 01:55:58 PMPlease agree with me. This has been a very frustrating post.

I sense you are somewhat on the edge, so I can agree with you that all people should be nice in the world. How about that?

Right I broke the law (unintentionally)! For that there are consequences. In this instance 1x 2x 3x etc as has been pointed out on numerous occasions (conceitedley sometimes, but no offence taken!)

Equally this law has been about since 2007 and more recently updated. Point taken. was I aware of it? Answer, no. This however is clearly no defence, after all anyone with a modicum of intelligence should have researched it. Accepted.

No then let's more on..... Each one of us submits our accounts or tax returns to the inland revenue. I will guarantee you now that everyone will try to claim whatever they feel is a deductible expense I.e paint, packets of screws, (I am keeping this list to simple items). However what do you then do with the paint left over, or the odd screw left in the packet? I imagine (not casting any disburtions I hasten to add) they might be used at home or at the office etc. therefore no longer a deductible expense!

You then endure an inland revenue investigation and the error of your ways  is found out, you broke the law, you may or may not be fined, because you broke the law, how much you are fined is at their discretion.  The fine or penalty depending on the severity of the fraud could be a slap on the wrists or a fine. If you are financially penalised the money does not go to Mr tax inspector but back in a central pool... "the stupid fund!" <not my terminology>

Government rules on taxation have been around since the year dot, Yet people make genuine mistakes and continue to do so. I imagine in this given scenario if the fraudster were able to prove it was a first and only genuine error that would not be repeated a simple slap on the wrists would be appropriate (having given back the money into the central government fund).

I will never accept that in situations where a tenant has received his or her deposit back in full ( prior to even asking for it and certainly prior to any dispute) that they should receive the bounty. The purpose of this law was to allow the tenant to engage in arbitration via a third party should a dispute arise over non return of full or partial deposit. Any fines imposed should therefore be paid to the courts or other suitable fund, this would stop ambulance chasers !!'

If you are never found out

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 19, 2015, 08:53:46 AM

Quote from: mickeyblueyes on March 19, 2015, 08:24:16 AMI also reckon on the quiet, so do our two extremely knowledgeable moderators.

Just to avoid any lack of clarity... I can assure you, with a shadow of a doubt, I do not agree with the point of view Sltj has.

For clarity's sake ( whoever she is) I am guessing you meant to say "without a shadow of a doubt ?"

Ah-ha... ta (for the sake of clarity).

You are welcome

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 04:45:55 PMI will never accept that in situations where a tenant has received his or her deposit back in full ( prior to even asking for it and certainly prior to any dispute) that they should receive the bounty. The purpose of this law was to allow the tenant to engage in arbitration via a third party should a dispute arise over non return of full or partial deposit. Any fines imposed should therefore be paid to the courts or other suitable fund, this would stop ambulance chasers !!'

So, all I will say on this is the following - if this was the way it was then it would suit you very nicely as the ex-Tenant would not go to the bother of bringing a case just for someone else (the fund) to benefit. So you'd escape the consequences of your act (non-act) of non-protection.

It would also work out nicely for some rogue Landlords... they could not protect the deposit as well... then try to steal it. However, if the Tenant doesn't immediately bring a case, but instead - possibly verbally and totally innocently - asks the Landlord "oh, do you have my deposit protection stuff I heard I should have?" then they can return it quick-sharp, thinking "uh-oh, the jig is up"... thereby avoiding any consequences. After all, they still didn't protect, but the deposit has been returned in full (because they knew they were about to be found out and took pre-emptive action) and the Tenant ain't gonna do anything more. Sure, that trick might not work if there's a paper trail and the Tenant can prove he asked about the deposit or brought a case before it was returned - no quibble - but it'd catch some people out, for sure. Didn't we all know that Tenants are, basically, stupid people and they need protecting from bilking Landlords? 

To me it all still pretty much makes perfect sense, I've got to say... but it doesn't especially suit me to have it any other way, I do get that.