UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi newbie here, please be gentle!

Is it true that a T can't sue for 1x - 3x deposit for late compliance (months late) if the deposit was protected before the Localism act came into affect in April 2012? The deposit was protected finally in 2011.

There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet so I can't get a definite answer. DPS says yes because it was still outside 30 days (14 at the time)  but others (Landlords & agents) say no.

Thanks

Yes (as in they can sue).

Which Landlords and Agents?

Thanks for replying

I asked advice on another Landord/Tenant forum and some said yes but others said no.

A valid point was that when the Localism Act was affected in the April, Landlords and agents had a 30 day grace period (May) to comply.
I've read lots of other conflicting information too. Quite confusing really.

I'm unconfused.

Which are you, Landlord or Tenant?

Provide us a link to the discussion on the other forum, then we can have a read and - maybe - be educated.

Sorry, not sure how to link!

I'm the Landlord. The deposit was taken by the agent but seems to me that they realised their mistake a month before the end of the fixed term and registered it when I took over management when it went SPT.

My view, then, is that you could be liable for the penalty if such a situation arises.

Has such a situation arisen?

Well the tenant brought it to my attention recently, not threatened to take me to court but made me aware he knew. He was angry that the deposit is still in the old letting agents DPS account. I agreed with the agents to keep it in their account as I don't use DPS for my other properties, stupid I know.
The tenant gave notice and demanded the return of his deposit when he found out.

If that's the end of it, you might have gotten off easy.

He is asking for it to be returned before vacating, is it wise to do that? There are no arrears and the property has been well kept by the T, I've had no concerns during inspections anyway but I haven't done a final check out yet.

Well, it's all due to him anyway... you can't really retain any of it. So does it matter?

I would say that if he has his deposit returned before leaving he will have no incentive to be mindful of your property.  He'll be careful and refrain from any spiteful acts if he is yet to have his money.
That's my take on human nature anyway.

Or he could be not mindful of the property anyway, and still be due his entire deposit back, regardless. Hence my thought of - don't poke the bear.

Anyway, the situation is what it is... what will be will be... the Landlord is kinda just along for the ride now.

Oh dear, does this mean arbitration won't be available to me if I want to deduct anything from his deposit if he doesn't agree?
Will the DPS just give it back to him because of this if he points it out to them?

He's also saying he hasn't had the prescribed information but I'm just waiting for the letting agent to get back to me as it was a few years ago they can't remember if they gave it to him or signed to say he received it.

Quote from: Wildling on April 20, 2015, 05:33:35 PM
Oh dear, does this mean arbitration won't be available to me if I want to deduct anything from his deposit if he doesn't agree?
Will the DPS just give it back to him because of this if he points it out to them?

No.  The deposit and deductions are an aside to the deposit protection.  By not protecting the deposit it doesn't give the T carte blanche to wreak a property with no consequence. 

Quote from: Wildling on April 20, 2015, 05:33:35 PMOh dear, does this mean arbitration won't be available to me if I want to deduct anything from his deposit if he doesn't agree?
Will the DPS just give it back to him because of this if he points it out to them?

This is part of what I referred to when I spoke about "poking the bear". Interesting. The Tenant may be satisfied with the full deposit returned and take no further action against you. The Tenant may be dissatisfied if there are deductions and decide to take action against you. The Tenant may or may not decide to take action against you regardless. Annoying.

What you basically want, it seems, is to treat a deposit that you didn't protect correctly just like a deposit that you did protect correctly, without consequence. That would be nice.

Just give him it back.

Its the only way, and that is a fact.