Deposit has been withdrawn?

[budget888]

Hi,
I'm a landlord and now also a tenant.
I follow the law regarding deposit protection.
I started rented a house 8 months ago under a standard assured shorthold 6 month tenancy and paid 1k deposit. Received the usual letter of deposit protection etc.
Then, this week received a letter from the deposit protection company advising that my landlord had taken back the 1k as the tenancy had came to an end.
We are still living here, and no plans of moving yet, nor have we had any reason to think the landlord wants us to leave.
Have messaged landlord and no reply yet.
Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on what may be going on and if the landlord is legally allowed to do this.
I have paid my rent on time every month.
Thank you

[theartfullodger]

Good news for you. Any s21 will be invalid until he returns deposit to you & you can sue for up to 3xdeposit.

Silly foolish landlord!

Do nothing , don't tell him. (He may have ended someone else's tenancy & sorted the deposit on yours..)

[KTC]

Good news for you. Any s21 will be invalid until he returns deposit to you & you can sue for up to 3xdeposit.

I agree that no s21 is valid for the moment, but I'm not convinced that the landlord couldn't rectify by re-protecting the deposit for the purpose of s21, and before a s214 penalty claim or even possibly before the hearing for such a claim to avoid a penalty.

[MisterB]

wouldn't he have 30 days from withdrawing it to then protect it again, as he maybe moving from one scheme to another?

[jpkeates]

Then, this week received a letter from the deposit protection company advising that my landlord had taken back the 1k as the tenancy had came to an end.

That sounds most odd.
When a landlord asks for a deposit back, the protection company would normally notify the tenant.
It's possible for the landlord to give the wrong contact details in order to bypass this, but they've obviously got yours to be able to contact you.

Have you tried contacting the scheme?

[KTC]

That sounds most odd.

Sounds to me like an insurance protection that has expired because the supplied tenancy end date has passed.

wouldn't he have 30 days from withdrawing it to then protect it again, as he maybe moving from one scheme to another?

The s215(1) sanction prohibiting valid s21 notice if deposit is not currently protected applies throughout a tenancy, but that's separate from the penalty.

Section 213(3) 30 days "beginning with the date on which it is received" to comply with the initial requirements of an authorised scheme, which presumingly had been met. And also s213(6) about prescribed information within 30 days.

So for a penalty, that leaves "that [the tenant] has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme." Which given the wordings and judgments from pre Localism Act cases would suggest is rectifiable so long as the deposit does get protected before the hearing leaving only potential for cost against the landlord.

[jpkeates]

Sounds to me like an insurance protection that has expired because the supplied tenancy end date has passed.

That makes sense.

[MdeB]

It seems to me that the LL is probably in breach of deposit laws.

HA 2004 S213 (1) "Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme."

To me, that means that once protected the deposit must be continuously protected.

It was received before the fixed-term tenancy began, and it appears was properly protected.

It was deemed received when SPT started (Superstrike) and it probably remained protected (depending on the terms of the scheme)

It does appear to be an insurance scheme because custodial schemes do not just allow LL to "take back" the deposit.

The LL "taking back" the deposit does not (imo) constitute the LL "receiving it" for S213(1), so no new 30 day period arises and the LL is holding an unprotected deposit.

[KTC]

It seems to me that the LL is probably in breach of deposit laws.

Sure, but that clause by itself is fairly meaningless. It basically just say you must comply with the law.

The question that arise is "how must you comply?" and "what is the penalty for non-compliance?".

There's sanctions re. s21 notice validity under s215, and there's proceedings that a tenant or a relevant person can bring under s214. There are two grounds to bring s214 proceedings, the first being s213(3) or (6) compliance which is where the 30 days test applies, and then there's what I quoted earlier.

The 1x-3x financial penalty applies if the court "is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme". So yes, a tenant can bring a claim against a landlord if the deposit isn't (after the 30 days) currently protected, but the 1x-3x wouldn't be awarded unless it's still not protected when the court get round to considering the matter.

[leaseholder64]

214(1) (a) is about failing to protect within 30 days.

214(1) (b) is about providing misleading information about the protection, or when scheme falsely denies that the protection exists.

Either is sufficient for the penalty.

[KTC]

Specifically though, s214(1) and (1A) gives the cause of action that allows a tenant to bring proceedings, but it's s214(2) - (4) that specify what the penalty is and what power the court has.

In our example, a tenant can bring proceedings because s214(1)(b) is satisfied, but the court is only required and only has the power to award the s214(4) penalty if s214(2)(b) or (2A)(b) is satisfied when it gets to the hearing. It's on the same reasoning that led to pre-Localism Act judgments such as Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd [2010].

[budget888]

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies.
I have an update regarding this and I'm getting a little worried.
I asked the landlord about withdrawing the bond and he claimed to have no knowledge about it. So I handed him a copy of the letter and he said he'd investigate. He claims he has not withdrawn the deposit.
Anyway, a few months on and we want to move, so we've told him he may be contacted for references etc and the message we received back is quite worrying basically stating "make sure the property is in good order or you won't get your deposit back".
The property is in better condition than when we moved in as we're normal tidy clean folk, no smoking and no pets etc, and he's visited the house a few times so he knows this.
I'm not an expert of law and I've read your messages above. I can see that you guys feel he has done something wrong but I don't see how it is benefiting my wife & I. Subject to references we will be moving in the next 5 or 6 weeks and I get the feeling he will not give the bond back.
If this happens what should we do?
We really appreciate your help.
Thank you.
ps. I just re-read the letter from the deposit protection company and it states "Please note that "my deposits" will only consider a deposit dispute from a tenant if the dispute notification is received by us:
- within 3 months of the tenant vacating the property
- or within 3 months of the deposit being unprotected whichever is sooner.

[KTC]

Did you not contact the deposit protection scheme in question and ask "hang on what's going on as I'm still living there"?

You need check with all 3 companies to see if any of them is currently protecting the deposit. And you should probably ascertain exactly what happened with that protection expiring was all about. Still sounds like an insurance scheme protection for a fixed term that weren't rolled over when the fixed term ended and a statutory periodic tenancy arose. If so, you're entitled to sue the landlord for a penalty for 1x-3x the amount of the deposit. But I'm just speculating here, there's not enough information to say for sure.

[budget888]

Hi,
No, I didn't contact the scheme. When I told the landlord I just assumed he'd look into it, then basically life got busy and I forgot about the whole thing.
I'll call them on Monday.
You mention the "3 companies". Who are the companies please so I can try them all?
Thank you

[KTC]

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi...t_is_protected