UK Landlord Forum / Life

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 04:45:55 PM
Each one of us submits our accounts or tax returns to the inland revenue

Do we/they?

Nice example about the tax but....................we are not talking about genuinely bending taxation rules to try and pay less tax by using consumables elsewhere.  The example compared to deposit protection would be a LL who didn't know they had to pay tax on the rental income, for say 10 years then getting a knock on the door from HMRC who conduct an investigation and fine them accordingly even though 'they didn't know' they had to pay tax.  That would be a fair fine as they should have been paying tax.  I'd like to think a nice, genuine, caring, sweet naive landlord who has been pocketing cash for 10 years got shafted by the system for not declaring income for all that time.  I pay tax on all of mine, why shouldn't they on theirs, regardless if they knew they had to or not?  Ignorance is no defence.

The party bringing the action is the same one who would benefit from the pot of money, so there would be no random 3rd party benefiting.

If there is no penalty for not protecting, then returning the deposit at the end of a tenancy then there is no point in having a deposit protection scheme in the first place, so it becomes optional, which it isn't. 

If your tenants had done genuinely 75% of the deposit amount in damages at the end of the tenancy that you had with them and you tried retaining it (as should be the case) and they asked to go to arbitration, at which point you'd have to admit this won't be possible and then they bought a claim against you, would you be feeling it still all so unfair?

Quote from: Riptide on March 19, 2015, 05:17:50 PM

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 04:45:55 PM
Each one of us submits our accounts or tax returns to the inland revenue

Do we/they?

Nice example about the tax but....................we are not talking about genuinely bending taxation rules to try and pay less tax by using consumables elsewhere

Neither am I.  The example I gave and for the avoidance of any doubt I will rephrase... A packet of 10 screws is bought for the let property at a cost of £1.00. 8 screws were used at the let property. On the tax return £1.00 the cost of the screws was put down as a deductible expense. However this was a genuine mistake as only 8 screws were used. The  £1.00' should have been prorated down!  This is fraud, unintentional fraud but non the less by your reckoning a capital offence!  So knowing the taxation rules  ( and as you keep reminding me we all should know the rules prior to engaging ) the financial penalty is imposed.... Do we give the award to Mr individual tax man for being so diligent, or should the fine go back in the pot?

I am not referring to tax avoidance or evasion so not sure why you go on to quote landlords not declaring  income, etc. I completely fail to see the relevance of your comments.
And I wasn't genuinely breaking the law when I returned he deposit in full before any mention of a despot bond!

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 19, 2015, 05:12:08 PM
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.

Ok. In the case of a landlord who has not registered the deposit etc and has not returned the deposit the tenant would be able to take the matter to court for failure to register etc, the judge thereafter will find in favour of the tenant having a full refund of the deposit based on the fact that the ll was in breach of the law,. Further fines will be imposed to the magnitude of 1-3x deposit and should be paid to the court or suitable fund, this has protected the tenants deposit and therefore the tenant, it has upheld the law. This would be a reason for the tenant to bring it to court , iE they didn't get their deposit back. Where it has been refunded and he still proceeds to court why should the tenant benefit from the fine, this is not protecting them, the court did that, it is encouraging ambulance chasers.

Mr individual tax man and this pot you talk about are one in the same. 

You haven't answered my question about if you wanted to retain 75% of the deposit either.

Your logic dictates.

Take deposit, don't protect it, return it all ok. 
Take deposit, don't protect it, don't return it go through the hassle of court just to get back exactly what you should have had anyway.  No incentive.  Day before court the deposit is returned.  No case to answer, happy days.

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 05:55:30 PM

Quote from: Riptide on March 19, 2015, 05:17:50 PM

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 04:45:55 PM
Each one of us submits our accounts or tax returns to the inland revenue

Do we/they?

Nice example about the tax but....................we are not talking about genuinely bending taxation rules to try and pay less tax by using consumables elsewhere

I am not referring to tax avoidance or evasion so not sure why you go on to quote landlords not declaring  income, etc. I completely fail to see the relevance of your comments.!

Because the example you gave was someone being cute and bending the tax rules and their tax return by using 10% of the screws they'd out against their tax at home.  That's not out and out ignoring the law through ignorance, that's willfully trying to get away with something that you knew you shouldn't.

My example of never declaring the rental income, through complete ignorance of the law was much more pertenant to the example of not protecting a deposit through ignorance, 

I'd hope the tax avoider not only paid the tax owed back (the deposit) but also paid a fine in top for not doing it in the first place (1-3x the deposit)

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 06:11:45 PMWhere it has been refunded and he still proceeds to court why should the tenant benefit from the fine, this is not protecting them, the court did that, it is encouraging ambulance chasers.

Maybe the Tenant is being rewarded for being a part-time Policeman, keeping those Landlords in-line, 'cos no-one else does, they are a law unto themselves, these Landlords... some of them will steal deposits, did you realise that? And, in the olden days, Landlords used to see deposits as a perk of the job. Crazy times.

The Tenant's reward is not the smug satisfaction of seeing someone given a slap on the wrist... the Tenant's reward is cold hard cash, that goes directly to them.

I genuinely have no problem with this, because it will never affect me. I am only slightly sorry for those Landlords it does affect - and then only the genuinely ignorant / forgetful ones. I have no problem with a Tenant getting a windfall from a Landlord who doesn't protect their deposit - whether it's been returned, without quibble, or not. I am not sure how I can say this any clearer... I have no problem with the legislation or how it works in practice. OK, I do... I'd prefer it if the PI stuff was simpler and an email sent automatically by the scheme to the Tenant (the email address they provided) was considered sufficient proof of service. I have no issue with taking a deposit and putting it (in my case) into the DPS Custodial scheme within 30 days... it causes me no issue whatsoever and this is, really, the only viewpoint I'm considering things from, because all the other stuff is just theory (for me).

I am reluctant to keep using the word "genuine" but nonetheless I am really truthfully genuinely honestly astonished that :
1) your tone is always accusative
2) you either intentionally or otherwise quote what suits, wihtout comment on "morally what is right" or indeed pertinent points raised that you simply ignore
3) you condone unscrupulous ambulance chasing
4)  a tenant who has suffered no loss should benefit from the fine and that this fine money wouldn't be better paid into a pot to assist , other members of the community , in this instance tenants or landlords in need of financial assistance for whatever the cause

5) you suggest in my comments regarding Mr tax man and hmrc , that they are one and the same..... My point as I am sure you know was, Mr tax man is the tenant , the fine should go to central fund and not to Mr taxman.

I didn't purposely ignore the 75% question I just feel there is absolutely no point giving an opinion or answering how I would deal with that scenario because you wouldn't listen, choosing to come back with some other " predetermined" comment.

However because I feel you are portraying me in a bad light ( and I am tired so probably not making sense today) I would state this.... If I retained 75% for repairs , there is nothing stopping the tenant from goiing to court and incurring the same costs ( which when he wins he will get back) the judge is the arbiter !

1. I'm not accusing you of anything, I know exactly what you did and the outcome of that.
2. I've already mentioned the morality issue, some people don't have any.  On another forum a tenant said they just wanted the deposit back and wasn't concerned about a claim going through, which was in the 1% minority
3. I don't condone Ambulance chasing but it's the nature of the world we live in now unfortunately, I get wound up that my car insurance costs increase each year due to fraudulent claims.  Chasing rogue landlords who don't follow the 2007 law doesn't really bother me as it has no direct impact on me in the slightest. 
4. Someone should receive it, why not the party involved.  Although you do condone the tenant getting it, just not in this particular circumstance (that the LL didn't know the law)

I'm not portraying you in a bad light, I just can't get over the fact that you're so annoyed at what's happening your trying to make out that it's a massive injustice and shouldn't apply in your situation.

If the deposit had been protected and then given back, none of this would have come up.

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 07:32:19 PM

4)  a tenant who has suffered no loss should benefit from the fine and that this fine money wouldn't be better paid into a pot to assist , other members of the community , in this instance tenants or landlords in need of financial assistance for whatever the cause

That was a typo I meant a tenant should NOT benefit from the fine... I most certainly do NOT condone this.... Like I said earlier I am tried!

Wow! It has taken me nearly 3 hours to read this forum. Very Interesting I must say. Firstly, I find it completely astonishing that there are certain individuals within the forum to find it acceptable for a tenant to take advantage of the law, not only the law but also a landlord that has helped them out and let them live in the property. With the law these days, I ams sure that you would all agree that legislation is always changing and it is hard to keep up with it, well I find it difficult with the job I do.

Now...if you were in a situation whereby you knew your deposit had to be protected by the landlord, and as a tenant you knew that this was the case....would you leave it until AFTER you have given your notice to ask why it hasn't been put into a bond?? No!! Not unless you were short of cash !!!!

It's as bad as people on these benefits...but me harping on about that is taking us off the subject.

As a landlord and having dealt with many different tenants in the past I completely agree with 'Sltj'.

Let's take the legislation and law hats off and look at the REAL picture. Tenant has NO loss...had their deposit back and now they decide to sue the landlord ? I can only make sense of this if the tenant did not receive deposit back....


Deposit may not have been kept safe but tenant had the FULL deposit back or am I wrong??

QuoteI'm not portraying you in a bad light, I just can't get over the fact that you're so annoyed at what's happening your trying to make out that it's a massive injustice and shouldn't apply in your situation.

Nonsense! The only injustice is where the penalty fine goes.
In my humble, bad person, law breaking, totally unscrupulous opinion, that is my sole point of view, and last I thought we are all entitled,to one of those, even if we haven't progressed to the title of "moderator"

goodnight, sleep tight, I will, in the full knowledge that I am a good, considerate, caring individual, and that will not change !
Good luck all you landlords out there who ever dare to make a mistake!
Not commenting any further, and for the record don't accuse me of being a one post wonder , clearly I was not.
Landlords "Keep um peeled"..... Rip shaw Taylor

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
Firstly, I find it completely astonishing that there are certain individuals within the forum to find it acceptable for a tenant to take advantage of the law,

It's acceptable because it is the law.  The LL has the option for this not to happen, takes 10 minutes, is the opposite of rocket science. 
It's not like the T has spuriously lifted a floor board and thrown themselves down the stairs in order to instigate an accident claim.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
but also a landlord that has helped them out and let them live in the property.

Helped them out in a charity sort of way?  I'm not in it for the charity, I'm in it for the money.  Tenants get house and give me money.  I'm not helping them at all, they are helping me.  The day I 'help' a tenant out who has an amazing sob story or unique situation is the day I get taken advantage of and have all the issues that comes with these charity cases.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
With the law these days, I ams sure that you would all agree that legislation is always changing and it is hard to keep up with it, well I find it difficult with the job I do.

Little has changed since it's introduction in 2007 apart from LL's now have 30 days to protect rather than 14 and a periodic tenancy requires a little work.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
Now...if you were in a situation whereby you knew your deposit had to be protected by the landlord, and as a tenant you knew that this was the case....would you leave it until AFTER you have given your notice to ask why it hasn't been put into a bond?? No!! Not unless you were short of cash !!!!

This bit is true.  I might send a reminder on the 31st day.  Not my job as a tenant to chase up protection dates, EPC's or gas safety certificates.  They are all obligations placed on a landlord and which renter isn't short of money?

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
As a landlord and having dealt with many different tenants in the past I completely agree with 'Sltj'.

That LL's who don't know the law should be let off or that X tenants shouldn't get the money whilst Y tenants should?

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PM
The deposit was kept safe and the tenant had full payment back!!!!

Safe where?  Cash under a mattress, a landlords ISA, in an about to become bankrupt bank account?  The only true safe place is in a government scheme which takes 10 minutes to put it in again.

You're advocating 'good' landlords can hold onto the money, whereas 'bad' landlords can't.

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 09:05:09 PM
In my humble, bad person, law breaking, totally unscrupulous opinion, that is my sole point of view, and last I thought we are all entitled,to one of those, even if we haven't progressed to the title of "moderator"

You're not a bad person or a law breaker, you've fallen foul of the law and you're not unscrupulous.  Your opinion is fine but it's not going to change the facts unfortunately.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMFirstly, I find it completely astonishing that there are certain individuals within the forum to find it acceptable for a tenant to take advantage of the law, not only the law but also a landlord that has helped them out and let them live in the property.

A Landlord helps someone out by allowing them to live in the property? For free, I assume you mean? I genuinely hadn't realised that Sltj hadn't been charging them rent and had just taken a deposit.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMWith the law these days, I ams sure that you would all agree that legislation is always changing and it is hard to keep up with it, well I find it difficult with the job I do.

It is likely that this says much more about you than your inane assumption about what we'd agree with. I find that if I'm getting involved in something I do my research, not just close my eyes, jump in and hope for the best... that seems to work best, I'm sure you would agree?

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMIt's as bad as people on these benefits...

What on earth do you mean? Were you going to commence with some sweeping generalisation? If so, let's get it out on the table.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMAs a landlord and having dealt with many different tenants in the past I completely agree with 'Sltj'.

That's good to know, I'm sure Sltj will be grateful for this. I found your input quite useful. Don't be an OPW now, you come back, y'hear?

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 09:05:09 PM...even if we haven't progressed to the title of "moderator"

Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please... I am sure the forum wants you to stick around, but people will often disagree and there's hardly ever full consensus... what do we do about that? We deal with it.

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 09:05:09 PMGood luck all you landlords out there who ever dare to make a mistake!

If you're too busy or aren't a good researcher, then I'd advise Landlords to, at least, prioritise... don't make mistakes on deposit protection as it could be costly, don't make mistakes regarding gas and carbon monoxide as it could kill someone... if you're going to play it by ear anywhere then do it on the bloody EPC or something like that.

This whole thread is a great lesson for Landlords who might be browsing this forum. It's another example of a Landlord who's got caught-out by deposit protection legislation and finds that they're in a pickle. I really hope their threat of taking you to Court evaporates or you come to a settlement that makes sense for you (both) but it's a cautionary tale. It reminds me of this Demotivator poster...

http://www.despair.com/mistakes.html

"It could be that the purpose of your thread is only to serve as a warning to others." and if nothing else, at least you mattered.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 19, 2015, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMFirstly, I find it completely astonishing that there are certain individuals within the forum to find it acceptable for a tenant to take advantage of the law, not only the law but also a landlord that has helped them out and let them live in the property.

A Landlord helps someone out by allowing them to live in the property? For free, I assume you mean? I genuinely hadn't realised that Sltj hadn't been charging them rent and had just taken a deposit.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMWith the law these days, I ams sure that you would all agree that legislation is always changing and it is hard to keep up with it, well I find it difficult with the job I do.

It is likely that this says much more about you than your inane assumption about what we'd agree with. I find that if I'm getting involved in something I do my research, not just close my eyes, jump in and hope for the best... that seems to work best, I'm sure you would agree?

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMIt's as bad as people on these benefits...

What on earth do you mean? Were you going to commence with some sweeping generalisation? If so, let's get it out on the table.

Quote from: Littlemiss on March 19, 2015, 09:03:09 PMAs a landlord and having dealt with many different tenants in the past I completely agree with 'Sltj'.

That's good to know, I'm sure Sltj will be grateful for this. I found your input quite useful. Don't be an OPW now, you come back, y'hear?

Thanks for your input, firstly I think if the tenant was allowed to live in the property for FREE we would not be having this conversation?? I'll throw the ball back in your court.... I think you may have to jog your memory and have another little read over the comments that have been made before telling me to do my research pal

Thanks for your opinions...not.  I am starting to think that you agree with the law maybe because you have taken advantage of it at somepoint so you are therefore in favour of it.

Anyway, don't be a FW now.

Also please DO NOT patronise me, I don't think this is what you should be here to do. I haven't been personally rude to you...yet. I think you should refrain from speaking to me in the manor that you are. We are all equal....

Now you're not an OPW, welcome to the club! We'll certainly treat you in the manor (sic) you expect... and deserve.

Of course I agree with the law, it has never and will never negatively affect me, because I do my job correctly. Only Landlords who can't get their act together will feel strong negative disagreement with it... maybe you are a Landlord who can't get their act together? If you follow the law it'll never bite you back, simples, so there's really nothing to disagree with.

How are we equal exactly? Is that just an assumption on your part? Or do you just say that to everyone, hoping (one day) it'll be true?

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 20, 2015, 08:57:29 AMI agree with the law, it has never and will never negatively affect me, because I do my job correctly. Only Landlords who can't get their act together will feel strong negative disagreement with it...

I joined as I have query with regards to a tenancy. I have read most if not all of the posts under this topic and feel compelled to comment.
Not on the rights and wrongs of anything but on the above comment that I feel is extreme.

In particular "Only Landlords who can't get their act together will feel strong negative disagreement with it"


"IT" being the law.  From my understanding of the comments made no person disagreed with "it" the law. The moral issue appears to be where a deposit has been returned and therefore the tenant has not suffered, should that tenant benefit from any monetary award.  PLEASE DO NOT LECTURE ME ON THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF WHY THE LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE REGISTERED THE DEPOSIT, WE HAVE ALL READ THE POSTS.

I offer the following for discussion only :- The Fraud Act. A new offence of fraud has been defined as follows:
•   The defendant must have been dishonest, and have intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another.

I wonder if the landlord in this situation should not defend any prosecution. Reverse the above!. In other words, defend the claim made by the tenant of 1x 2x or 3 x the amount of the deposit, on the basis that they, the tenants were being fraudulent/dishonest in as much as, they knew the law and did not mention to the landlord within 30 days that they had not received the deposit bond number. This could show "they intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another".

Just a thought ?

So it's the tenants place to ensure the LL complies with the law as they have greater knowledge than the person it affects?  Interesting.

When did these tenants know about everything surrounding deposit protection?  Was it before, during or after the tenancy?

What if the LL didn't know a gas safety certificate must be issued each year and one of the tenants died as a result of faulty gas but did know the law and knew one should have been issued, I suppose you could tell the surviving partner that they had it coming as they didn't inform the landlord that they needed to have one?

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 01:33:42 PM
In other words, defend the claim made by the tenant of 1x 2x or 3 x the amount of the deposit, on the basis that they, the tenants were being fraudulent/dishonest

There is no defending the claim, under any basis, this is not a dodgy insurance job.  The one and only question that will be asked and needs to be answered is "Was the deposit protected within 30 days and was PI issued",  anything apart from a yes will see the judge make an award.  The answer, "No it wasn't but the tenants knew it had to be" will be laughed at so hard I would actually like to be there to see it.

I might see this point as being semi valid if the tenant did everything within their power to ensure that the LL didn't put the money in the protection scheme i.e Made up a story how they would prefer it if they held it in cash, they've been burnt by the scheme before, leaving the country at short notice and would need to get hold of it etc etc.  It would have to be a pretty stupid landlord who would agree to do this, similar to one who didn't put it in a scheme when given the money by the T.

The issue is not why the claim is being made, the issue is that a claim is being made.


P.S Ponderer, you are a very very fast reader and very fast at typing.  You managed to join up, read all if not most of the posts in this 4 page thread AND post a lengthy, reasoned reply all in 6 minutes, which is the total time you've been online on the forum.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 19, 2015, 10:16:56 PM

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 09:05:09 PM...even if we haven't progressed to the title of "moderator"

Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please...

You reference "stupid landlord"

So you are allowed personal attacks but others are not?

To comment on "P.S Ponderer, you are a very very fast reader and very fast at typing.  You managed to join up, read all if not most of the posts in this 4 page thread AND post a lengthy, reasoned reply all in 6 minutes, which is the total time you've been online on the forum"

I read and printed the posts last evening. You see I do my research before I sign up to anything. Did you have a particular point to make ?

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PMSo you are allowed personal attacks but others are not?

Are you addressing the correct person?

I haven't called anyone stupid directly to my knowledge... but, if I have, then I would unreservedly apologise and do so right now. I think this topic has got a little heated, which is not unsurprising with 4 pages of stuff (this is longer than most threads by a long way)... but all we have managed to do is assure the OP that, yes, they are in danger of being sued and, yes, the ex-Tenants have that right. All the rest is just arguing about academic scenarios that don't even exist. We don't even know what the OP is doing about the situation as they've not said.

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 02:04:54 PM

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 19, 2015, 10:16:56 PM

Quote from: Sltj on March 19, 2015, 09:05:09 PM...even if we haven't progressed to the title of "moderator"

Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please...

You reference "stupid landlord"

So you are allowed personal attacks but others are not?

To comment on "P.S Ponderer, you are a very very fast reader and very fast at typing.  You managed to join up, read all if not most of the posts in this 4 page thread AND post a lengthy, reasoned reply all in 6 minutes, which is the total time you've been online on the forum"

I read and printed the posts last evening. You see I do my research before I sign up to anything. Did you have a particular point to make ?

No, just musings. 

A LL who gets talked out of protecting a deposit is stupid as they should be in control and not allow a random person to stop them following the law.  One who does without knowing about it is unlucky I guess.

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 01:33:42 PMI wonder if the landlord in this situation should not defend any prosecution. Reverse the above!. In other words, defend the claim made by the tenant of 1x 2x or 3 x the amount of the deposit, on the basis that they, the tenants were being fraudulent/dishonest in as much as, they knew the law and did not mention to the landlord within 30 days that they had not received the deposit bond number. This could show "they intended to make a gain or to cause a loss to another".

Just a thought ?

Recommend you give it a go... instead of trying to have someone else try to be clever in front of a Court. Let us know how you get on. If you get a case for non-protection of the deposit thrown-out then we'll all want to hear, as you will be the first.

When you log on to the Forum Home page you either go to Landlord or Tenant etc. depending on which side on the fence you are on.

Forums are a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

I wasn't aware that it was a place you came  to allow  other know it all landlords to  show off,  and in some instances quote examples that are not relevant just so they can exhibit publically their personal knowledge.

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
When you log on to the Forum Home page you either go to Landlord or Tenant etc. depending on which side on the fence you are on.

Forums are a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

I wasn't aware that it was a place you came  to allow  other know it all landlords to  show off,  and in some instances quote examples that are not relevant just so they can exhibit publically their personal knowledge.

I like to think I'm on both sides of the fence and offer advice to both parties.

I don't use this to show off and I certainly don't know it all.  I think one of the first posts reply to the OP was "Don't worry I think they must have crossed in the post" and "That can't be right, if the deposit has been given back then everything is ok" both completely untrue and giving the OP false hope.

I do know about deposit protection, I do know about the outcome for not following it. 

At a risk of being boring and repeating myself, it's been around since 2007, it's simple to do and it's the law.  My sympathy is low as it's one of the first things you'd come across when researching.  I don't care about the outcome when claims are made, I don't care where the money goes as it doesn't affect me and I will never have a non deposit protection claim brought against me.

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 02:34:52 PMI wasn't aware that it was a place you came  to allow  other know it all landlords to  show off,  and in some instances quote examples that are not relevant just so they can exhibit publically their personal knowledge.

What are you blathering on about? Are you 13 or something? Someone saying that they'll never fall foul of deposit protection legislation is not showing-off... it is them stating that they're in the position that all Landlords should be in. Only unprofessional Landlords, and rogues, are not protecting deposits.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 20, 2015, 02:55:40 PM. Only unprofessional Landlords, and rogues, are not protecting deposits.

Perhaps it is ones choice of words that is undermining, by example "only unprofessional Landlords" why not "only inexperienced Landlords...."??

As previously stated a forum ........ where ideas and views can be exchanged.

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 03:12:23 PMPerhaps it is ones choice of words that is undermining, by example "only unprofessional Landlords" why not "only inexperienced Landlords...."??

Because we are answering the OP, treating the patient in front of us...

Quote from: Sltj on March 12, 2015, 08:48:30 AMFor your information I have been a landlord for 20 years. I have 5 properties that I let out. 4 of which I have had the same tenants in for 19, 15, 12 and 10 years.

Not inexperienced. Should be professional. Should be aware of all (yes, all) the legislation surrounding letting property. Seemingly is not.

Quote from: Hippogriff on March 20, 2015, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ponderer on March 20, 2015, 03:12:23 PMPerhaps it is ones choice of words that is undermining, by example "only unprofessional Landlords" why not "only inexperienced Landlords...."??

Because we are answering the OP, treating the patient in front of us...

Quote from: Sltj on March 12, 2015, 08:48:30 AMFor your information I have been a landlord for 20 years. I have 5 properties that I let out. 4 of which I have had the same tenants in for 19, 15, 12 and 10 years.

Not inexperienced. Should be professional. Should be aware of all (yes, all) the legislation surrounding letting property. Seemingly is not.

Hello again. I see one of my posts has been quoted in my absence.
It is true the previous four properties I let out were all let out well before this legislation. I never took deposits in fact in the earlier two lets at the time of the lets there were no written agreements either, interestingly enough never had any problems.

So YES inexperienced! The recent let I put through he council tenant scheme and as such they organised it all. When these tenants vacated I was approached through a friend of a friend who wanted the property without even seeing it. Blar blar blar.

Not yet decided what to do in terms of my dilemma, no doubt at the weekend I will take my head out of the sand and give is some serious, professional, positive thought, as a responsible law abiding landlord should . <tongue in cheek>