I believe the technical term is... bugger! Sheffield is my County Court too! Hmm... I'm tempted to try the argument that a deposit protected late with TDS / mydeposits.co.uk outside the 14 days is in breach of the scheme rules, which in turn is a breach of the initial requirements.

Hmm... have a look at 8.1 and 8.2, suggests that the money should be paid / protected within 14 days: "8.1 The Housing Act 2004 (c. 34) Part 6 Chapter 4 paragraph 171 (3) states that: Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received. 8.2 For TDS this means that within 14 days of the tenant paying over a deposit to a member, whether or not the funds have been cleared: 8.2.1 the tenant(s) must have received the information specified in paragraph 14.2.3 by its inclusion in the tenancy agreement; and 8.2.2 the information specified in paragraphs 14.3 must have been lodged on the TDS tenancy database." If not protected within 14 days - i.e. the information required under 8.2.2 isn't lodged (how can it be if the deposit hasn't been protected?) - the initial requirements of the scheme are not met. So, under s.214, if the initial requirements are not met, the 3x penalty becomes payable? Agreed?

Found the scheme rules: Section B: Deposit Protection B1 Deposit Protection Criteria B1.1 Subject to observance of the Scheme Rules you may protect any Deposits collected from a Tenant/Relevant Party, with Us. You undertake to obtain protection from Us within 14 days of receiving the Deposit from the Tenant/Relevant Party. Taken from: http://www.mydeposits.co.uk/pdf/mydeposits_Scheme_Rules_for_Landlords_v2.pdf

Found the scheme rules: http://www.mydeposits.co.uk/pdf/mydeposits_Scheme_Rules_for_Landlords_v2.pdf See: B1.1: My understanding of that is failure to protect within 14 days, equals no protection under TDS due to failure to abide by the scheme rules. Anyone else think the same?

It does bring us back to the original point, because if the initial requirements have not been met then the LA is in breach of s.214(2) and so the penalty becomes available once again - which was my point of opening this thread, to try and find a hole in s.214 and this might be it! So, people might be able to claim the 3x penalty, not for the failure to protect within 14 days but for the failure to comply with the initial requirements. It feels somewhat ironic, doesn't it? Dunno why....

Thanks expressed to RentedandRankled for replying to Mr. Pipps before I could. Without repeating many of his points, here are my thoughts. Firstly, people have asked for disclosures of experience. Although not legally qualified I have two key areas of experience to disclose - one, I law at undergraduate level, two, I've worked for over a year in a lettings market, albeit nothing in relation to any of this. Mr. Pipps, I asked you for evidence of what you were / are saying is accurate because there are differing viewpoints on how the legislation can be interpreted. Ed, previous page, has a differing interpretation. RentedandRankled has a differing interpretation, I have a differing interpretation at this point. Surely the point of CAG forums is to people can get together in a neutral atmosphere and help each other?! By pointing us all to the sections you interpret we can all work together to understand it better. How is that a bad thing? You seem to attack the idea that you need to substaniate your viewpoints. Mr. Pipps, you made a key, and incorrect, assumptions that I believed the lines fed to me by my agent. For your information, One - LA have admitted they failed to protect my deposit and that I may take action if I wish. Two - I've been researching this myself prior to taking action - hence my questioning of s.214 - there's no point taking action if destined to fail. Righty to matters: RentedandRankled goes through s.213(6)(a) which QUALIFIES the grounds upon which an order for 3x deposit may be made. It is ONLY if the initial requirements have not been complied with OR the proscribed information (see Tenancy Deposit Order 2007) hasn't been provided. It does not say that the penalty is applicable for not protecting within 14 days is 3x because to do that would be require the section to SPECIFICALLY reference 14 day requirement. I quote RentedandRankled because no-one seems to have anything that contradicts him: They key therefore has to be - what are the intial requirements of TDS / mydeposits.co.uk? Does anyone on the forum know? Planner - do you have this information? Generaly, please, everyone, challenge each other's understanding of the legislation and use examples - cases, documents, materials, legislation etc. It is through questioning each other's understanding of the HA we might get to what it really means. Mr. Pipps thinks that the section gives the punishment for non-compliance with the 14 day rule but hasn't shown us where is understanding comes from (in the words of the act). He makes a fine point about the intention of the legislators, a point with which I agree, and how the HA may not be written as they intended. Never the less, it is the law as written that is applied.

Steve, cheers for this. Can you quote the TDS rules? Are they online? I've looked on mydeposits.co.uk and can't find them. That'll be the killer for any landlord using TDS after the 14 day period- if their rules are that tightly drawn. We can help a lot of claimants hopefully!

Hi everyone, I've had a post running (some good debate with Planner) about the implications of s.214 and how it allows landlords a 'get out of jail' so long as they comply with s.213(6)(a) - i.e. they can protect the deposit whenever they choose because once protected and a deposit certificate issued and given to the tenant, the grounds for 3x penalty are no longer valid. Has anyone else noticed this? Anyone found a way around it yet? Mr. Pipps, Ed posted earlier on page two about how action might not succeed under s.214 if the landlord protects or returns the deposit. Your post directed Ed to re-read s.214. I've spent a lot of time reading s.214 and I've got to agree with Ed, unless you can pursuade me otherwise (please do because I've been caught by the letting agent here!), the 3x penalty is applicable where either a) the landlord has protected the deposit, but outside the 14 days, and provided the certificate after protection, or b) has returned the deposit. Mr. Pipps, you were quite strong in your condemnation of Ed, please provide evidence - quote the section and your interpretation - for your view. Hopefully, we can all debate it / reach a consensus on what it really means. Two heads, or in this case probably twenty heads, are better than one letting agent!

Hi Planner, I absolutely agree that there must be a reason for the 14 day rule and s.215, but problem being there doesn't seem to be a rule that says these papers must be provided within the first 14 days under s.214(2). It really should read: (2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court— (a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or (b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, © is satisfied the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme at the time of the application, but not within 14 days of recieving the deposit. as the case may be. But as it doesn't have a subsection ©, I don't see a penalty for late security of a depsosit prior to the making of an order. I'm struggling to see it. Maybe if people cite the cases that have been won? Court, parties, case number and date. Although there are no precedents at this level, it is a persuasive argument to make. As for intial requirements, s.213(5) and (6) make reference to the intial requirements and the definition of initial requirements in the Act seem to point to the scheme's own requirements but I can't find a definition online. Help appreciated!

Planner, that is precisely my point. See s.215(2): " If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with." Once s.213 has been complied with a s.21 notice can be given - i.e. when a certificate is provided you can be served. A different angle perhaps - many of the sections refer to the "initial requirements" but I haven't found a definition of them anywhere.

Yes, that is a penalty agreed, but becomes available once again once the deposit is protected, so I go back to my original point: What true penalty is there if the landlord protects the deposit outside the 14 day period, upon notification of intent to begin legal proceedings, and provides the certificate? Is there one? Again, taking my circumstance, what rights and remedies are available to me?

Doesn't that frustrate the purpose of the penalty? If the landlord can protect the deposit late and get away without the penalty what's the point of the penalty? Surely then every landlord might as well not protect a deposit on the off chance that the tenant doesn't take action, and when / if they took action protect it only when proceedings were threatened, they'd escape the penalty? That can't be right.... What is the penalty there for? Is it for failure to protect, or failure to provide information that the tenancy deposit is protected? Please clarify by quoting the relevant section. Take my deposit as an example. Given 4th July 2008, certificate of protection provided 14th August 2008, deposit protected 12th August 2008. What section has actually been broken? Because on your logic the deposit is protected and I have a certificate so no relief is available under s.214.

I'm raising a post in defence of Mr. Shed and in defence of his remarks. From what I've read, Mr. Shed's responces have been grounded in his understanding of the law distilled from the emotive argument. He has attempted to counsel from his knowledge. It has been rebuffed because his opinion is not agreed with. In defence of his remarks, I believe the landlord has done all he could within his power. He has offered alternative accomodation. He has offered reasonable accomodation at that. It isn't the property the tenancy relates to, but is of a comparable nature when the discount offered on the rent is factored in. It is important to note that the rent is decreased to reflect that the orginal property has changed. There is no profiteering, nor is there any fraud upon the OP's friend. What has happened is that both the landlord and the proposed tenant are victims of circumstance. Also important is that the OP's friend accepted the alternative offer. He/she/they considered their position and chose to accept the studio.

A few threads have commented that if the landlord protects your deposit outside 14 days but prior to court proceedings, and giving you the certificate of protection, there is no penalty available. What about trying this: Argue to the Court that s.213(6)(a) incorporates (b) because it says "and". Therefore, allowing you to argue that the penalty for non-compliance with s.213(6)(a) includes failure to comply with s.213(6)(b) and so penalties are available from invoking s.214(1)(a), s.214(2)(a) and then getting to the all important s.214(4). Anyone tried this already? Let me know your thoughts.

A holding deposit and a deposit held for compliance with the terms of a tenancy are two different things. A holding deposit isn't covered by TDS because it is held in furtherance and contemplation of entering into a tenancy. It becomes a tenancy deposit at the point the tenancy begins. The key will be the term "holding". Was it taken to hold the property - i.e. secure the property prior to the tenancy so no other offers can be taken / let to anyone else? If held to hold the property prior, and then held after the point the tenancy commences, for the purposes of the HA 2004, the date it became a securable deposit is the day the tenancy commences. The Act does specify "tenancy deposit" should be protectd and does define what a tenancy deposit is. Quite arguably, a holding deposit is there to cover say referencing expences etc. Your actual deposit paid on the day you moved in should have been protected within 14 days of the day you moved in.

Cheers for that. Which notice can be given to end a tenancy in the term? I've a vague recollection that there is one???? I was under the impression that a s21 was the right one - maybe not (!).

Where does it say that a s21 can't be used? I was under the impression a s21 can be used for any purpose, irrespective of the term of the tenancy. This not the case?

In answer: The Housing Act is an incredibly badly written piece of legislation. It's saving grace is that there are little loopholes that can be exploited. The reason I say it is badly written is that to make a claim you have to jump between sections. It should say in plain English that the result of x is y - this was a piece of legislation supposedly written for the lay person. The landlord is bound by the agents actions. The relationship of agent and principal presides in this situation. The agent signed the letter with the (implied) consent of the landlord. If he has 100 properties without a deposit protection certificate, then it could prove to be an expensive time for him. Inventories. No intentory at the start makes is very difficult to prove that damage has been caused during a tenancy. Dispute using TDS / mydeposits.co.uk (if secured in that scheme) Emails can be used, if it can be proved that they were sent and recieved. I always ask for a read reciept and I always cc myself in. Proves email sent, recieved and able to be opened with date and time.

Not always Mr. Shed, the landlord could serve a s21 notice, Housing Act 1988 requiring possession after 8 weeks.

Try using the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Make a written request that the agent shall disclose the identity of the landlord, within 21 days. This legislation is mainly for use between tenant and landlord but you never know the agent may accidently give you the details. No harm trying!

"We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service. We are not forced to use accountants or solicitors - we can do that stuff our self if we choose too." We have regulated persons and functions in a multitude of industries - IFAs, Solicitors etc. You can not handle the conveyance of your house yourself. You can not handle the transfer of a company pension scheme yourself. You do not have the choice you think you have. You have a choice within a regulated atmosphere. "Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go. Yes, but employers are not EU citizens. The employer HAS dictated where it goes - into the banking system - a virtual cartel. I think this is open to interpretation." Is it not that society today dictates that the money goes into the banking system? A combination of government, employers and yes employees. You could insist that your wages are paid in cash or cheque, or if you really want to hark back to times bygone, in kind with butter, milk and cheese. " As explained above, we DO pay for banking already - we lend them our money at a rate far lower than that of inflation - they lend it on at a rate far in excess of inflation." But the example I have brought specifically took this into account. If we got credit interest - real interest - say BBR plus/ minus a half we would be getting paid for our accounts properly. I have a problem with you calling banking a cartel. A closed system - yes. A cartel though? Explain why you call it this. I accept the fundamentals that it could be a cartel if there was no regulation of the industry - however light - but you do have options to change bank and to choose differing services and accounts. Take my usage of Whiteaway Laidlaw compared to my account with the Halifax. Whiteaway Laidlaw GREAT service. Naff systems. Halifax. Great systems - online, branch network etc. Naff service. I have a choice as to whom I bank with. It's a closed system but there are enough competitors in the system to pick from to ensure a level(er) playing field. Finally, I don't follow your maths on the £2970 for the bank, please explain. Probably my lack of mathematical skill!

But Dave, you miss my point, which is mainly: "What is wrong with paying £5pcm for banking, provided that we get what we pay for? Good interest when in credit. Reasonable interest when in debit. End of waiting 3 days for BACS. End of waiting 7 days for cheques." If we got the above, there is no arguement against paying for banking except that there is 1) competition and 2) it's the status quo. Competition is a riddiculous argument - what happens if they all introduced fee based banking. The status quo argument is just as riddiculous when you consider how much banking has changed in the last five years, let alone ten. The service is evolutionary. Look at the HSBC account offering 8D/8C with a fixed fee. That is the future of banking. People do get a good service from the banks. It's no argument to say 'we are forced to use them so they must be cheap to use'. We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service. On the issue of whether or not they are services. To use your French account transfer example - the service provided is the bank crediting your account and ensuring that it is credited safely and securely, unless you want to go to France and put the money in yourself -what option have you got? On the Wages Act, I understand the aim of your point except that you miss that employees do have a choice over what they do with the money. The days of putting your money under a mattress are rightly over. Today's equivelent is in which electronic account are you going to hold the money. You have control over which account and bank you have that money paid into. Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go. Finance is a regulated industry - Dave would you rather go back to the 17th and 18th centuries of mickey mouse banks appearing on the scene, taking your money and then disappearing? If you accept that you can complain about the service of a bank you must accept that it should provide a level of service. Why should you not pay for that service? Bank regulation is good. Regulation will restrict the number of banks. Banking is not a free to enter industry. Quite rightly banks have to prove themselves prior to becoming authorised. Banks are in a position of strength because of this. Look at it from this angle. Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 1% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £30. Pay to bank for service £0. Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 5% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £1,500. Pay to bank for service £60. Who wouldn't go for the second option?

Can anyone convince me why we should NOT pay for banking? Isn't it a service like any other? Why are we addicted to free banking? What is wrong with paying £5pcm for banking, provided that we get what we pay for? Good interest when in credit. Reasonable interest when in debit. End of waiting 3 days for BACS. End of waiting 7 days for cheques. What is wrong with paying for banking? Why do people believe that banking services should be free, except for it's the status quo and it's what people are used to? Someone convince me please!

In my opinion, very fair fees. I can't complain about them at all. £5 for a cheque bounced on you for example, very small charge! I have all my company accounts with them and I can't fault their helpful staff. Yeah, maybe their processess are a little outdated and there is no online access yet but more than made up for on their great interest rates. Things can only get better with online etc as Manchester Building Society takes more control. Maybe small moan, there is an application fee for an overdraft on their personal accounts.

Whiteaway is no longer owned by GUS plc, but by the Manchester Building Society, and is now based at Queens Court, Manchester. Personally, I think WLB is a great bank, especially as it works on 'old style' principles - personal banking, helpful bank, small team of dedicated people. They're accounts won't have looked that good as they were going through demerger from GUS causing massive changes.