Deposit Protection Certificate issue

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Deposit Protection Certificate issue

    Hi Guys, I am having deposit dispute with my landlord and looking for help.

    I recently moved out of a property after 7 years as assured shorthold tenant in London and paid £1300 deposit. My tenancy agreement saying that my deposit would be protected in Tenancy Deposit Scheme but landlord protected my deposit with MyDeposit but not informed me that he used other scheme and lots of inofrmation on certificate were wrong including landlord name and tenant address etc. I don't remember the date certificate was sent to me. My landlord not maintained property during last 7 years and now he said that property must be returned in the same condition and withhold all my deposit for cleaning, decoration and other things.

    I sent a letterr to my landlord to return my deposit and also told him that he has broken deposit protection rules and now they sent me protection certificate (same ref no) with correct information.

    Can landlord re-issue same ceritificate after 7 years once tenancy is terminated?
    Is this ture that landlord name must be correct on certificate (mine is a ltd company) otherwise protection would be voided?
    Landlord must protect deposit with same scheme included in tenancy agreement or he can use any scheme ?

    Thanks



    #2
    Did they protect it?

    The wrong scheme would be a contract breach for which you would find it difficult to show that you suffered any financial loss. Why didn't you challenge the certificate 7 years ago.

    It depends how wrong the details are. Small errors, where the intent was clear, are probably going to be ignored.

    After 7 years most things, like carpet, mattresses, and paint will have no residual value, so raise a dispute with the protection scheme.

    Comment


      #3
      The landlord has to supply a document containing the "Prescribed Information" about a deposit within 30 days of receiving the deposit.
      If that's what was supplied and you are describing it as the "deposit certificate", if the information was wrong (not just misspelled or due to a typo) it possibly wasn't supplied as required.

      That's possibly a problem for the landlord.

      The landlord can't demand the property in the same condition as when let.
      It should be in the same condition less normal wear and tear (and excluding anything it is the landlord's responsibility to maintain).
      After seven years, the only issues are likely to missing items or damage.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #4
        Yes, I am talking about "Prescribed Information" and details are completely wrong. I have contacted Shelter for advice and going to start pre action protocol to take landlord to court.

        Comment


          #5
          Good plan.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #6
            It's still important to know if it was actually protected, as that would result in the penalty being at the low end of the scale.

            Note that it often appears that, when challenged for deposit irregularities landlords come up with vastly inflated damage claims. I'm not sure how much this simply reflects their general lack of knowledge and disrespect of the law, and to what extent it is an attempt to recover the cost of the penalty.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
              It's still important to know if it was actually protected, as that would result in the penalty being at the low end of the scale.
              The OP haven't given any details about length or renewals of the tenancy etc. so it's hard to say. But regarding the original tenancy, 7 years would suggest OP is beyond limitation for protection penalty.

              I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

              I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

              Comment


                #8
                leaseholder64 , I have all evidence including check-in , check-out reports , pictures etc and I think it would be very difficult for landlord to claim extra damages other than what he claimed before. Landlord not have any respect of the law. I draw his attention towards deposit schemes guidelines and regulations but he refused to listen. He is a professional landlord having big portfolio and must know the law. He sent me new prescribed information after ending the tenancy just to dodge the regulations.

                KTC , tenancy agreement was fixed term for 1 year assured shorthold tenancy and then became periodic tenancy for six years, nothing changed and didn't renew and deposit belongs to first tenancy agreement.

                I may not get a full penalty award but at least I want someone independently to review my case and court is the best place for this.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by JustThink View Post
                  [USER="74485"]I may not get a full penalty award but at least I want someone independently to review my case and court is the best place for this.
                  I would suggest that you sue your landlord for the deposit via the small claims court.

                  The lack of Prescribed Information issue is a)quite minor, b)may be tricky and c)may have timed out.

                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by JustThink View Post
                    He sent me new prescribed information after ending the tenancy just to dodge the regulations.

                    KTC , tenancy agreement was fixed term for 1 year assured shorthold tenancy and then became periodic tenancy for six years, nothing changed and didn't renew and deposit belongs to first tenancy agreement.

                    I may not get a full penalty award but at least I want someone independently to review my case and court is the best place for this.
                    Doesn't work like that. Providing it late does not remove a landlord's liability to pay a penalty. However, your problem is limitation. The limitation period for a claim for statutory penalty is six years from the "cause of issue". If your SPT started more than six years (+30 days) ago, you're probably out of time.
                    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                    I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think it might depend on when the incorrect information was first noticed, although that could go either way.
                      But I don't think it's a useful approach.

                      The goal is to get the deposit back, so I'd sue the landlord for that; the incorrect information is useful as a threat at best,
                      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by KTC View Post

                        However, your problem is limitation. The limitation period for a claim for statutory penalty is six years from the "cause of issue". If your SPT started more than six years (+30 days) ago, you're probably out of time.
                        Hi KTC , please can you explain "limitation period" and "cause of issue"? these are new to me. I read Shelter guides and not mentioned anything these time limits. For example, I signed tenancy agreement on 1st January 2011 and then I have time until 30 January 2017 to start legal action ?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          I think it might depend on when the incorrect information was first noticed, although that could go either way.
                          The liability arises from a landlord failure to comply with the requirement of the Housing Act 2004 to protect the deposit and to give information as prescribed in the time limit set. I don't see one can even try arguing for postponement based on fraud, concealment or mistake under s32 because it's clearly something a tenant "could with reasonable diligence have discovered it".


                          Originally posted by JustThink View Post
                          Hi KTC , please can you explain "limitation period" and "cause of issue"? these are new to me. I read Shelter guides and not mentioned anything these time limits. For example, I signed tenancy agreement on 1st January 2011 and then I have time until 30 January 2017 to start legal action ?
                          It's actually "cause of action" not "issue", my bad.

                          Limitation period is the hard deadline imposed by statute on how long you have to take someone to court. The relevant piece of legislation here is the Limitation Act 1980, and I believe more specifically section 9 - Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute.

                          The relevant date is when the deposit was received by the landlord and the period of compliance the landlord have. Before 6 April 2012, that was 14 days, since then it's been 30 days. There were arguments that the limitation for deposit taken before April 2012 may have been reset (or extended) as a result of the changes then bought in, but even in that case, it's been over six years. Say the deposit was taken on 6 April 2012, the deadline for protection and provision of prescribed information was then 5 May 2012. If the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant would then had until 5 May 2018 to make a claim in court.

                          A new tenancy (including a new statutory periodic tenancy) give rise to a new requirement to comply.
                          I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                          I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Hi KTC
                            ​​​​​​Thank you for detail reply, it has cleared lots of things for me . What is statuary periodic tenancy and is this different from my periodic tenancy? My tenancy became periodic after one year fixed term tenancy and I never signed a new tenancy, thanks

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by KTC View Post
                              The liability arises from a landlord failure to comply with the requirement of the Housing Act 2004 to protect the deposit and to give information as prescribed in the time limit set. I don't see one can even try arguing for postponement based on fraud, concealment or mistake under s32 because it's clearly something a tenant "could with reasonable diligence have discovered it".
                              It depends on what the mistakes were and when they were discovered.

                              The tenant was given some Prescribed Information within the deadline, so the issue is twofold, is the incorrect information sufficient to make the document insufficient to meet the required prescription and when was it possible for the tenant to know that?

                              The information on the PI isn't that exhaustive, so I'd have thought that pretty much anything other than spelling or typos is probably enough to make the document incomplete.

                              You'd expectsomeone exercising reasonable diligence to spot the landlord or tenant's name was wrong, but not necessarily the landlord's address (for example).

                              Completing a document with the wrong information on it lends itself to the notion of concealment, it's not as if the data provided is ambiguous enough to make a mistake likely.

                              But I think you're right, the court would probably just decline to proceed.
                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X