Landlord Petition for more grace when Tenants deposit returned

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

    Landlord Petition for more grace when Tenants deposit returned

    More and more landlords are finding themselves receiving letters from solicitors demanding they pay deposit penalties as a result of failing to protect tenants deposits in a DPS scheme, despite the tenant having handed back 100% of their deposit when the vacated the property after the tenancy ended. A petition has been put up to support Landlords to allow grace in light of those of have returned the tenants money back to them. The who deposit protection scheme was set up so as rouge landlords and agents could not tenants damage deposit as they use to in the past and runaway with them. Please go the government web site to you are a LANDLORD and wish to have more grace to given to you and support the good Landlords out their who do return deposits back despite genuine human errors having forgotten to protect the tenants deposit into a DPS scheme. Watch out for the petition on the government web site and if you agree please sign it.

    It will appears 1 week from now I am told.

    #2
    Grace has already been given by not making this a criminal offence. The courts can already exercise leniency by only awarding 1x the penalty. I supposes you could give them discretion to go for half or a quarter of the deposit, if there were extenuating circumstances.

    Also, if a landlord is failing to protect deposits, they are probably failing to do other things. It tends to suggest they don't have the knowledge to be a good landlord, or don't have the time to be one.

    I guess, if it had been a criminal offence, there woudln't have been many prosecutions because the authorities wouldn't have had the resources to bring them, but avoiding punishment because of public spending cuts isn't really a good excuse.

    You should probably look at cases to see what penalty actually gets awarded in the sort of mitigated case you describe. If it is anything more than 1x, that would indicate that the courts wouldn't be inclined to reduce or waive the penalty.

    Comment


      #3
      If a landlord forgets to do something they've been legally required to do for 15 years, which they have 30 days to do and which takes about an hour to do (most of which is printing!) they probably deserve a penalty.

      What's more concerning is that people have found out how to make a fortune with the legal action costs - the court may award a 1 x penalty (allowing for the landlord's return of the deposit with no quibble), but the legal costs from the no-win no-fee solicitor will be massive by comparison.
      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
        Can you tell PPI is coming to an end?

        Comment


          #5
          You can claim for PPI refund from Co until 29/8/19, provided process is initiated.
          Some form of PPI is likely to continue after 29/8, but you won't be able to reclaim it.

          Comment


            #6
            I think the reference to PPI claims ending was that the contingency fee lawyer firms are looking for new types of cases that are not accident based.

            It could get interesting if one starts getting cold calls, and TV and newspaper advertising, as I suspect most victims of deposit mishandling probably don't know the penalty is possible, or even that their landlord has to protect the deposit. It may be in the how to rent booklet, but most people don't read such documents.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by LANDLORD2020UK View Post
              The who deposit protection scheme was set up so as rouge landlords and agents could not tenants damage deposit as they use to in the past and runaway with them.
              Apart from the above comments, that's the flaw in your approach -- this is not why the scheme was set up (or designed in the way it was) - or at least not the major reason.

              Comment


                #8
                yes, it is unfortunate that people who do not know the law are being penalised, but part of being in business is knowing the laws that apply to that business.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X