Deposit not protected

[robert_harper_2000]

I moved in 17/11/2006 Term 6 months.

 

I recently contacted the LA to ask if my deposit was protected and told it didn't apply to me as I moved in before April 6th.

 

However since reading, renewals are classed as new agreements and so my deposit should be protected. I also just agreed to change to a periodic tenancy starting when this term ends 16/05/2008.

 

Could I make a claim against the LA for the 3 x deposit.

 

Thank you

[robert_harper_2000]

I would like to read the two recent cases; one positive one not. Does anyone have links?

Also what is this about if they comply after you issue a claim for non-compliance then you cannot proceed for the compensation?

 

Where is the legislation regarding the actual non-complinace?

Edited May 13, 2008 by robert_harper_2000

[waterbottle]

Rob,

 

Don't worry about the thing that Ed999 posted. It is not accurate.

 

From what we know, it seem that you have a solid case for the 3 x penalty. I am not computer literate enough to post links but can you use the search facility?

 

Also, the thread started by ABitOfAPickle regarding the Tenency Deposit Scheme has almost everything in, and contains other links. If someone could post a link to that please...

 

Good luck Rob.

[robert_harper_2000]

Cheers, I'm thinking I'll give him 28 days first to rectify his mistake/.?

[robert_harper_2000]

I'll e-mail the LA and the three protection schemes to find out if I have a policy. Once I have the responses I'll issue a claim

[robert_harper_2000]

LA replied via e-mail:

 

"The Tenancy Deposit Scheme only came into force in April 2007. Your tenancy began 18th November 2006 so this is not valid for you."

 

I am correct in thinking this is non-compliance?

[waterbottle]

On which date was the most recent occasion that you signed a contract for a new tenancy agreement? Allowing the tenancy to lapse into a periodic does not count.

 

If you moved in on 18th Nov 2006, how long was the fixed term? Did you sign a further agreement?

[robert_harper_2000]

6 month term so after November (dec, jan, feb, march, april, may) must have signed around June then (july, august, sept, oct, nov, dec) signed around Jan now feb, march, april, expires this May 17th tomor infact. I've def signed two contract for a further six months since I moved in and this time I re-arranged term to be periodic. So the fact is it should have been protected twice before.

[waterbottle]

Yep....which means that you can claim for 3xdeposit. He should have protected it!

[robert_harper_2000]

Hmm... I've contacted him and get the impression Palms suggested it wouldn't apply. The LL is the one with the deposit but I feel overall he has been fair - Would he have known about this?

[waterbottle]

I've no idea what he knew. I just know that every private landlord I get involved with is very friendly to begin with but ends up trying to rip me off.

[robert_harper_2000]

Well if I give him the benefit of the doubt and he does get it stuck in a scheme. Then I think he is one of the good guys. What do you reckon?

[robert_harper_2000]

Hmm now I think I know where you are coming from. LL so far has promised to check, week later promised to get wife to check through and get back. Week later explained don't worry either I or Palms have it and it will be looked after... well no I want it to be protected and I am only holding back from suing you, even though I'm deep in my overdraft and could do with the cash because I wanted to give you the chance - I don;'t want to sue him if he is innocently doing this but feel he is taking the mick abit

[robert_harper_2000]

still checking apparently has assured me though, he will look after the deposit either way.... what do you reckon?

[robert_harper_2000]

At last a response. LL has said that the deposit is with LA

LL

have called LA and they confirm that they do hold your deposit .

The regulation on managing deposits came into force April 2007 and you singed up the tenancy on November 2006 .

Nevertheless it has always been LA's policy to hold all deposits .

 

If I make a claim it will be against the LL but I feel he just doesn't understand and is being led by the LA. Can I not claim against the LA instead?

[MrShed]

Nope. Not your problem if he doesnt understand anyway!

[robert_harper_2000]

But I don't know... I think it is a moral thing? Or am I being stupid. If it was the agency I think I would do it tomor but the LL I just think perhaps it is an innocent mistake

[MrShed]

The landlord can sue the agent for his loss if it is due to their negligence.

[robert_harper_2000]

Do you think he would just kick me out once I start proceedings? shall I explain he could sue LA lol

[MrShed]

I probably would explain that - but yes he can. If you explained that he is legally the person you have to sue, then if he is reasonable then he shouldnt.

[robert_harper_2000]

But I doubt he would be quite so considerate once I started proceedings. I guess I could always wait until I move out and see if he becomes unreasonable as there is no limit on when I can sue, is there?

[MrShed]

Correct. That would probably be my personal opinion.

[robert_harper_2000]

Has anyone got a template...?

[MrShed]

I am agreed with water bottle up to certain extent .

 

Up to what extent??????

[Esio Trot]

But I doubt he would be quite so considerate once I started proceedings. I guess I could always wait until I move out and see if he becomes unreasonable as there is no limit on when I can sue, is there?

 

Bear in mind that there is one case, the link I can't find at the moment, where an action was taken out for non-protection. In this case, the tenant took the action after they had left the property. The judge took the view that as the tenant was no longer a tenant, having left the property, then as he was no longer a "tenant" he was not entitled to take out an action.

 

Many posters regard this ruling as wrong, but unless it is appealed to the high court it will not be regarded as case law.

 

The law as drafted has a number of shortcomings - it is poorly thought out in places. Thus until this and other anomalies are sorted out in the higher courts and clarified by case law, there is a risk that an action will fail for any one of a number of technical reasons.