Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Hello every one...we have rented our house since March 07 on a 6 month assured short hold tenancy contract. At the end of the 6 months we signed for a Periodic Tenancy on a month by month basis. My query is-is our deposit protected under the deposit scheme as we don't really understand how it works! (we are looking to move due to intolerable circumstances and would like to know how we stand with the deposit before we give our notice and if it should be part of a scheme? Not really that clued up! and could do with a lot of help) Thanks ever so much for any advice given! Kerry
Did you actually sign a new agreement? It is very unusual to do so if it is simply a change to a statutory periodic tenancy...
7 years in retail customer service
Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years
By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.
Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.
If the tenant under a shorthold tenancy pays a deposit (often called a "rent deposit") on or after 6 April 2007, the landlord must comply with the Housing Act 2004 in relation to that money.
But a deposit paid before that date is only protected by the Act if the tenancy is formally renewed on or after that date, by the signing of a new tenancy agreement, not if the tenancy merely continues by default.
It seems you might have an arguable case for saying that your tenancy was formally renewed. Not a cast-iron certain winner, but a reasonable chance of winning.
Probably therefore worth claiming the return of your deposit plus the penalty (making four-times the amount of the original deposit in all), once you have moved out, as there is some prospect you might win.
Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.
OOOHHH GOODY GOODY GOODY. We were made to renew (sign a new T/A ) every six months. The LL did not protect our deposit claiming that as it was given to her before the law changed then she was not obliged too. We have vacated the premisis and she is refusing to return our £500 deposit because of the three srew holes that were made in the hallway wall to secure our alrm control box!. As the last T/A was only signed December 2007 does that mean that we can claim the three times the £500. Tell me please, i could do with some joy at this time ( and a short Holliday)
As the last T/A was only signed December 2007 does that mean that we can claim the three times the £500. Tell me please, i could do with some joy at this time ( and a short holiday)
You can certainly make a claim - whether you will succeed is uncertain.
There are cases that have been won, but there are two cases that relate to your circumstances that have been lost.
The first was the Glastonbury one you commented on. As the deposit was "received" before 6 April 2007 the claim failed.
The second was where a claim was made after vacating. The judge in this case ruled that as the claimant had vacated the property they were no longer a 'tenant' in relation to the deposit. As a claim can only be made by a tenant, the case was dismissed.
Thus you can only pay the court fee and hope you get decision in your favour.
On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.
aaaahghhhhhhh. But wait a second. the NEW T/A states that the deposit will be placed in a government scheme, the LL signed the agreement after 6th April. As it turns out, it wasn't deposited in a fund. It was not untill I gave up the tenancy and the ll refused to return my deposit, that I discovered that the LL had pocketed the £500. Surely one should not be barred from a claim just because he/she was unaware that something untoward had happned. Surley the whole ethos of the rules is to deter LL from thinking that the can rip off thier tenants willy nilly. Go on cheer me up, two cases have been lost! Have there been any cases that have won ?
Surely the whole ethos of the rules is to deter LL from thinking that the can rip off their tenants willy nilly.
The thinking of the government was exactly this: To make the small minority of landlords who abused tenants deposits to act fairly. Trouble is, they get so tied up in rhetoric, they lose sight of the practicalities of what they want to introduce (And we have another fiasco with an 'option under consideration' of temporarily messing with stamp payments on property transactions).
Originally Posted by royboywales
Go on cheer me up, two cases have been lost! Have there been any cases that have won ?
Cases have been won. You just need to be aware that there is always risk in taking legal action, and in the case of deposits greater risk purely as a consequence of the sloppy drafting of the enacting legislation.
On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.
Re Tenancy deposit sceme..
Reply With Quote
Re: Re Tenancy deposit sceme..
Originally Posted by royboywales
