UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi, I am new to the forum but have been a landlord for many years.  However, I have today received a text message from a previous tenant, advising that she is going to take me to the small claims court for 3 times her bond monies or if I pay up now she will accept one month's rent, as she says I did not provide further paperwork to her when her AST went to a SPT. I did register the deposit originally within the timescales laid down and I did update the deposit from an AST to an SPT and my provider has said that there is no legal requirement to forward an updated certificate but other people have said there is.  I am completely confused and wondered if anybody knows the legal ruling on this? Also if you do, then do they have to sign the new certificate or as they have signed the original certificate and this is merely an update this doesn't need to be signed? Any help anybody can give me as to the legal position with regard to this would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you

Unfortunately PI has to be reissued to the T when it changes to periodic.  It's a stupid system.  The award at court could be between 1-3 times the deposit.  The tenant cannot decide that this would be 3 times, that's down to the judge, the nature of the breach (I.e never protecting it) etc. As this at the lower end of what's bad I'd hazard the award would only be 1 times the deposit.  You could call the T's bluff.

I am really interested in this. I am a new landlord and am kicking off a 6 month AST next week, and will be registering deposit with DPS.

After 6 months I had assued that the contract automatically went to a periodic contract.

Are you saying that I need to carry out some actions in relation to the deposit at the 6 month point ?

If so, what are they?

Thanks

Yes you do Martha, you need to do something for every new AST in the tenancy or at the point it goes periodic.  You need to tell the deposit scheme what's happening and then you need to reissue PI and get a signed and dated copy for your records to cover yourself.

I had no idea we had to reissue the Prescribed Information (PI) for every new AST, even when it turns periodic! Damn!

I've looked through the FAQ's on the depositprotection.com website, but can't find anything. Do you happen to have a link, Riptide?

All it says on the website is:

When do I have to give the Prescribed Information to my tenant(s)?
"The agent/landlord must ensure that the Prescribed Information is correctly completed and served on the tenant(s) within 30 days of the agent/landlord receiving the deposit. The tenant(s) must be given an opportunity to check and sign the Prescribed Information. This is requirement of Tenancy Deposit Protection legislation under the Housing Act 2004."

But that implies you only send them the info 30 days after the deposit is received. The deposit is only received once...

It is only received once but then it's reprotected when it goes periodic or when a new ast starts.  It's totally retarded that you have to issue the same information stating that the deposit is still where it was when you first gave them the information.  The schemes are useless at pointing out what you have to do. There was a court case regarding this which is where it all came out in the wash.  http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/superstrike-vs-rodrigues-guidance-on-implications.pdf

From that link

Our position
• We recommend that in order to ensure full compliance with the implications of
the Superstrike decision, you should re-serve the Prescribed Information within
30 days of each renewal or the creation of a statutory periodic tenancy.

What information should change from the AST PI to the SPT PI ?

Thanks

Should or does?

Does = none

Which makes it even more stupid, but it is the creation of a new tenancy (periodic) so should be re-issued and dated accordingly.

So if nothing changes, and I assume this includes dates, how can one prove it was a reissue and not a copy of the original  ?

This is bonkers.

Is there nothing to be written anywhere to explain why it is being reisssued (e.g. transfer from AST to SPT) ?

Thanks again. 

I did say the date changes.  It corresponds with the new ast/periodic.

sorry I missed that.
Thanks

Who was it that said "the law is an ass"

They were right on the money.

As if this isnt bad enough my tenant does not appreciate that the DPS thing is for his protection and he stresses at having to sign things.

If I have to go back to him in 6 months and get another signature from him for the PI reissue I can see I will have a job on my hands trying to explain it to him. He may be reluctant to sign it if he doesnt get it.

I just say, "you need to sign this" they ask what it is and I say "it's details where your deposit is and is exactly the same place as last time and it means you can't sue me in the future for not giving it to you" 

In the event of a long-term tenancy, initial fixed term moving to periodic, it's only twice you have to do this. If your Tenants were changing every 6 months or you were issuing new ASTs all the time, then you'd have to be doing it all the time... it's not overly onerous so I'd just get on with it... don't be tempted to cut corners as we all know this can come back and bite you later - much later, up to 6 years later I believe. And, of course, there's no defence... so just do what you need to do.

A Tenant who carps about signing things needs to be put in their place... we all have to sign things during our lives. It is always best to get it signed, but if the Tenant (due to some peculiar quirk) decides they don't want to then consider getting the PI issue witnessed, usually simple enough. However, if your Tenant is acting in this way, I would be tempted to not have them as my Tenant - they are not helping you do what you need to do. This Tenant could also decide that the Gas Safety Check is a nuisance as well, and not understand it is [at least partially] for their benefit. Down that road leads trouble... culminating with accusations of harassment and the changing of locks... I may exaggerate - a kind of worst case scenario.

My point being... if your Tenant is so precious about stuff like this, it could snowball. As Landlord you must not be fearful of your Tenant's attitude. If you feel under pressure in any way, get shot and start again.

Thanks for your comments. Good stuff.

Hi All

Many thanks for all your comments most helpful. 

Can I ask a further question?  Should the tenant take me to the small claims court then surely they would have to prove a "loss", but what has the tenant actually lost?  The case that sparked these changes was Superstrike v Rodrigues and was based on the serving of a Section 21 notice to remove the tenant from the property and the fact that the landlord had'nt registered the deposit at all.  Therefore in this case the loss to the tenant was the ability to live in the property, but in my case what has the tenant lost?  Surely they have to prove a loss?  Appreciate anybody's comments.  Helen

No, they do not have to prove, or even assert, a loss. A Landlord who has not followed the deposit protection legislation (through ignorance or intent) has broken the law and the Tenant will win their case... the cost to the Landlord will be 1x to 3x... the Court has no ability to say 0x. I'd not want to go to Court.

Quote from: helen on September 05, 2014, 12:19:13 PM
Hi All

Many thanks for all your comments most helpful. 

Can I ask a further question?  Should the tenant take me to the small claims court then surely they would have to prove a "loss", but what has the tenant actually lost?  The case that sparked these changes was Superstrike v Rodrigues and was based on the serving of a Section 21 notice to remove the tenant from the property and the fact that the landlord had'nt registered the deposit at all.  Therefore in this case the loss to the tenant was the ability to live in the property, but in my case what has the tenant lost?  Surely they have to prove a loss?  Appreciate anybody's comments.  Helen

You'd think so wouldn't you.  Compo culture gone mad. 

I don't necessarily agree with this.

I do think a Court should be able to say "this Landlord was just ignorant" and maybe let them off with a slap on the wrist - as it is today it's 1x to 3x, that's it, it's very black and white to the outcome, then a gradient of penalty. I still stand by the fact that doing the deposit protection thing, no matter how onerous it might seem, it actually really easy. Amateur and one-off and accidental Landlords might be the ones who get caught-out... but professional crappy Landlords are the ones we truly have to worry about... those Landlords that see the Tenant's deposit as a perk of the 'job' from the outset. If a Landlord is posting on this forum then I reckon they're probably not too bad... as at least they're here looking for advice... but being a Landlord is quite a serious undertaking (for most) and printing out some stuff and getting it signed is - truly - not a hard thing at all. Being a Landlord certainly should involve some level of research before 'going for it', yes, there's always an element of learning on the job - but there are things you simply have to have set up before you dip your toe in. I do object to hearing about Tenants who might know their Landlord is just a dufus - not a criminal - but then still wants to try and take them (or scare them with the claim) for 3x... I just don't think it happens except in the more serious circumstances. I still like to think most people are reasonable.

So best practise at this time is to reissue the PI within 30 days of an AST going periodic.

However, I see that there are proposals to change this (section 215A) and make it necessary to only issue the PI once (within 30 days of the AST commencing)

http://www.landlordsguild.com/tenancy-deposit-legislation-amendment-deregulation-bill/

Does anyone know when this is likely to become law ?

Thanks

Hi Martha

I understand that the Government are currently looking into this but it is going to be the New Year before the changes become effective!

thanks for your reply.