Deposit Scheme does not match Tenancy details

[Vila]

Hi There,

Please delete if duplicated, I can't find my previous post.

I'm on a rolling Shared Tenancy Agreement with 1 more person. I'd like to leave the property asap but when queried about my deposit situation the landlord has stated he'll refund it to my flatmate ONLY in due course.

When moved in I demanded to be included in the contract, hence I have tenancy agreement starting on 1st August 2017 with my flatmate and my name on it but I've now realized it doesn't have the Deposit Scheme details and it was only signed by the Landlord and myself (a stapled sheet with my signature has been added but it bears no date).

We have been issued Section 21 with bind us till the end of October (leaving the property 1 November) but I don't know where I stand. I'd like to leave the house with some guarantees of my deposit being refund after the final inspection but it currently seems this would depend on my flatmate goodwill ( which is not a lot). Any advice on how to approach this?

P.S: Final rent and potential notice is due 31 September

Many thanks in Advance

V

[jpkeates]

What is a shared tenancy agreement?
Do you mean a joint tenancy agreement?

[Vila]

Hi, yes. It's a Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement with both tenant's name signed in 2017. We haven't signed anything else since.

Thanks.

[leaseholder64]

Although it sounds as though there are irregularities here, you can't have a deposit each. There is one deposit for the whole tenancy.

Protection schemes tend to nominate a lead tenant, which is the natural person to which the whole deposit will be returned, and, if things had been a little less messed up, you would need to talk to them about your "share".

What should happen in this sort of situation is that when a sharer is swapped, the old tenancy is surrendered and a new one created. At least on paper that results in the return of the deposit and a subsequent completely new deposit.

What often happens and is often got wrong, is that one of the joint tenants assigns their tenancy, and makes a private arrangement with the incoming sharer to sell them their "share" of the deposit. In that case, from the landlord's point of view the incoming sharer is responsible for the outgoing one's damage. This method is not advisable.

You seem to have had something different again, and probably results in an implied surrender of the old tenancy and an implied agreement, by the remaining sharer, to the new one. It probably means the deposit isn't properly protected for the new tenancy.

[leaseholder64]

Sorry, I seem to have read into this that you took over from another sharer, but on re-reading I can't support that assumption.

The bit about lead tenant and there only being one deposit still applies.

The landlord doesn't have to have all your signatures on the same piece of paper.

[Vila]

Thank you, that's very useful.

At the time I moved in the flatmate was already living in property and the contract was on her name only (so it did the deposit scheme). Before I moved in I insisted to have a new contract, assuming this would protect my deposit but if I understood right, I have not been included on it I have not received the details) but wouldn't be this be unlawful?
thanks

V

[AndrewDod]

The whole thing sounds like a total bodge. It seems likely that the tenant (both of you) were not properly named on the deposit. However there is no such thing as "my deposit". Understand that there is only one tenant (both of you) and one deposit. It is entirely a matter between you and your flatmate as to how you sort that out -- not up to the landlord at all. You may have a case against the L for not properly protecting the deposit (incorrectly naming the "tenant" - if that is the case). You might be left having to sue your flatmate for the deposit. Ask landlord to return half the deposit to you, otherwise you might be inclined to take action against them for failing to protect it properly. They might well comply given that this is a major threat.

We are not really going to understand it without seeing the full relevant parts of the tenancy agreement you signed and the deposit certificate.

[Vila]

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks for your advice. I had assumed that having a brand new agreement would automatically produced a new scheme by which my deposit would be protected. I really just want to be able to end the tenancy and get my deposit back from whoever is responsible for it.

Since the FM is not being reasonable, could the landlord legally refund my half without breaching her contract? Could she sue him for it?

Kind Regards

Lidia

[leaseholder64]

A brand new agreement would have resulted in a new deposit, but it would not be a deposit from you, it would be a deposit from both of you.

[AndrewDod]

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks for your advice. I had assumed that having a brand new agreement would automatically produced a new scheme by which my deposit would be protected. I really just want to be able to end the tenancy and get my deposit back from whoever is responsible for it.

Since the FM is not being reasonable, could the landlord legally refund my half without breaching her contract? Could she sue him for it?

Kind Regards

Lidia

Do as I said. Write to landlord as follows (this dependson the facts being correct as I understand them):

Dear L - I am led to understand that my deposit has not been correctly protected. As you know this tenancy has been a joint tenancy (per the agreement dated xxx and should have been protected within 30 days of that date in the correct name of the joint tenant and properly served with prescribed information to all components of that tenant). You will be aware that I am able under the law to take action against you in respect of that breach, and a penalty of up to three times the value of the deposit may be awarded by the court. I am not however inclined to take such action, because my main concern is that my deposit is returned to me in full. I am concerned that if you return all of the deposit to [name] that it will not be recoverable by myself. Please therefore return half of the full deposit without any deductions directly to me. You may return any residual part of the deposit to X. If this step is taken by yourself I will not take action in respect of your failure to protect the deposit since I have no particular dispute with yourself.

Yours Sincerely

And then see what happens..... Whether your other half sues the landlord is no business of yours and I would think this unlikely.

[AndrewDod]

Dear Moderator2 - I wrote a long and potentially helpful response to this OP. However the massive bug in this forum has yielded its head again and my post was abolished as spam after I corrected a spelling error (ours to yours). Please resurrect it -- and is there some way of fixing this bug.....

[Vila]

I'm very thankful for the support given, just to clarify that I understand there should have been a new deposit scheme from August 17 with both tenants names on it (our deposit) which would had entitled me to the refund of a specific figure once the tenancy come to an end.

However, since this is not the case and the FM has breached her initial contract on her first month (by bringing in a pet without written consent, but this is another issue) I am trying to figure out whether I got grounds to ask and/or would be legal for me to get the refund from the landlord.

[leaseholder64]

If there had been a proper surrender followed by a new tenancy, you wouldn't personally have been due a refund a particular figure for the deposit. Together you and the other person would be due the refund, but it would be up to you and them to sort out any split of the deposit.

It is not clear exactly what has happened with the money you think of as a deposit. It might have gone to the other person, or it might have been treated as an increase in the total deposit for which the scheme considers him the lead tenant.

The only way you could have had a personal deposit under the current system is if you had a room only AST.

I think the landlord has cut corners and made a mess of things, but it is difficult to work out the details of the mess.

[jpkeates]

I'm very thankful for the support given, just to clarify that I understand there should have been a new deposit scheme from August 17 with both tenants names on it (our deposit) which would had entitled me to the refund of a specific figure once the tenancy come to an end.

I don't think you are accepting the basic situation.
In a joint tenancy there is one tenant (who is both of you), one rent (which you are both liable for - all of it, not just half) and one deposit (which belongs to both of you.

However, since this is not the case and the FM has breached her initial contract on her first month (by bringing in a pet without written consent, but this is another issue) I am trying to figure out whether I got grounds to ask and/or would be legal for me to get the refund from the landlord.

The tenancy can't just end.
One of you will have to give valid notice, which ends the tenancy for both of you.

Then the deposit is due to be returned to both of you (although it will possibly be given to the first tenant who was named on the tenancy agreement.

Until the tenancy ends, you and the other occupant are locked together and are treated as a single tenant.

[Moderator2]

Dear Moderator2 - I wrote a long and potentially helpful response to this OP. However the massive bug in this forum has yielded its head again and my post was abolished as spam after I corrected a spelling error (ours to yours). Please resurrect it -- and is there some way of fixing this bug.....

1. I don't necessarily read every new post in the forums, so posting a message to me in a thread will a) possibly not be seen at all and b) will generally be seen much later than a PM or reported post message, both of which reult in an e-mail message to me.
2. The forum Admin that I used to deal with left some time ago, I am not aware of a replacement, but before he left he told me that the forum software is very restrictive in the amount of tailoring of security settings compared to earlier versions and basically he was unable to 'relax' the settings. So, we're stuck with it.