Jump to content

New court case effecting deposit protection


Recommended Posts

This court case that has gone to the court of appeal has some major implications regarding deposit protection for tenancies pre April 2007 and periodic tenancies now.

I can see a lot more landlord & agents being caught out with a x3 claim as soon as Shelter get onto it.


It makes the deposit bond for HB tenants more desisable than ever or not taking a deposit at all.

The law is a ass at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Grampa.

I have just let my London flat using an agent for tenant find only.

Tenancy started on 15/6 but agent has had deposit and 1st months rent since 28/5. After acute pressure on the agent this morning I am just about to get the deposit by bank transfer which is outside the 14 days in which the deposit should be protected as stipulated in law and mentioned in this judgement.

Agents - even ARLA ones seem not to take into consideration the law and they deserve to get caught out imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is in your situation the tenant could make a claim against you or the agent but more likely against you.

If I was you I follow it up in a letter to the agent asking them to explain themselves about the delay and the risk of legal action they have put you in just so you have a paper trail so you can try to recover any fine you may or may not get.

I would also complain to ARLA.

This sort of thing makes me so cross and is one of the reasons letting agents have a bad name. It is not hard or even expensive to keep on top of new laws and court cases etc. I pay £130 pa to the Guild of residentials landlords for all the doc, forms and legal updates i would ever need and send staff and myself on day courses for about £120 a person (I pay for about 6/7 pa) . There is also a lot of info on all the deposit websites as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stopped taking deposits or at least I did on a property I bought nearly 3 years ago. My flat has a HB tenant through an agent and that is all Kosha.

Another property I have had a tenant in for over 8 years and I handed back his deposit about 3 years ago as he is just the model tenant and also he is ex SAS and would probably kill me with his forefinger if I ever had a dispute with him. :D

In fact I have just completed my 6 monthly check with him and if all tenants were like him I would have a hundred properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaps am I missing something ?

The 14 day limit from taking deposit to protecting the deposit and serve relevant (in their opinion) documentation has been increased to 30 days.

Deposit protection schemes and landlords - GOV.UK

Mortitia you have till 27th June.

At least they realised how bloody silly 14 days was, it will show intelligence when they realise the rest of the legislation is also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We only have to give the T the opportunity to sign, I suppose in case they refuse / can't be bothered.

I would treat as serving a notice with proof of dispatch.

I just duplicate the last page of info, the signature page. When signed that goes on file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summarising the case.


I've no legal qualification but I don't understand the application of the ruling.

A deposit was taken for a fixed term tenancy.

The ruling states that the transition to a periodic tenancy following that fixed term is a new tenancy.

Even now with our tenancies a deposit should be re-protected for what becomes an 'evolved' periodic tenancy. But no deposit was taken for what is deemed to be a new tenancy. A deposit is still in place for the initial fixed term and that deposit remains unclaimed.

Pretty well all tenancies evolve to a periodic or a renewed tenancy. In my case it has always evolved into a periodic.

This means that all tenancies that evolved post April 2007 give T's the right to claim against us.

Now imagine the choked up court system and the resultant number of LL's that will tell the courts to naff off, I being one. The industry would go into meltdown.

Many LL's would be unable to find funds, the effect on their business feasibly fatal.

Is our best defence to close down ALL existing tenancies, return deposits, and start afresh with each tenancy, if we still wish to ?

Can we approach each T and request they sign a disclaimer ? Is the obvious threat of eviction harassment (although harassment is 2 or more events) ?

Actually if a new tenancy is created immediately at the coming to end of a fixed period of tenancy

it follows that a new tenancy is created immediately at the coming to end of each period of tenancy, each month in most cases.

Should we re protect deposits each month now ?

Personally I'll be waiting to see how this pans out.

It's not just the deposit legislation that's pathetic it's most of the housing act that generates so much ambiguous confusion and due to that confusion causes so much heart ache and stress to both T's and LL's.

It's only a matter of time before increasing interest rates turn many profitable portfolios into loss makers.

Until property values increase substantially, in the real 'when you try to sell' world, many portfolios are in negative equity anyway.

It doesn't take very much more crap our way for many LL's to fold, go bankrupt, and get a fresh start 12 months later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

quickie question. re hmo.. license. it states a 3 story.. but a house is surly a 2 story ?? ( no attic or basement is rented out either) please advise. also im reading lots of contradictions to how many you can have renting.. 4 allowed or 5 or6 keeps changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COR - I read this in a Painsmith blog and they intend to challenge it.

Just think of how many potential claims there could be against landlords who don't issue the prescribed information regularly - what a waste of paper.

Another looney judgement from our out of touch with reality judiciary.

Susie - you need to start a new post for your question on HMOs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't be changing anything I do regarding deposits.

It's stupidity to regulate us anyway and if that legislation now looks to be faulty so as to allow the already corrupt to enjoy more open, and legal, abuse we are most definitely screwed. Let 'em come for me - apathy wins.

But there will be 11 evictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...