Failed to use Tenancy Deposit Scheme-will I be fined?

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

    Failed to use Tenancy Deposit Scheme-will I be fined?

    Hi All I am new to this forum. Can anyone help re the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. I let a property on the 1st Sep and was unable to sort out the protection until today 2nd Oct, I know its my fault & that ignorance is no excuse etc. etc. The tenants are fine and the certificate is signed and all OK.

    My question is, should I have any worries about being penilised or fined or taken to court at a later date because of being two weeks late even though it is all sorted out?

    #2
    Originally posted by Sharky View Post
    Hi All I am new to this forum. Can anyone help re the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. I let a property on the 1st Sep and was unable to sort out the protection until today 2nd Oct, I know its my fault & that ignorance is no excuse etc. etc. The tenants are fine and the certificate is signed and all OK.

    My question is, should I have any worries about being penilised or fined or taken to court at a later date because of being two weeks late even though it is all sorted out?

    Although technically you were a bit late in protecting the deposit, I think in practice the chances of this coming back to haunt you are very remote. As long as you are a good landlord, your tenant(s) will be very unlikely even to think of claiming against you for this minor breach. On the scale of appalling acts of negligence on the part of some landlords, it's as but a drop in the ocean. Don't worry.
    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Sharky View Post

      My question is, should I have any worries about being penilised
      Blimey, I knew the sanctions for non-compliance with TDP were a bit draconian, but that would be just plain mediaeval
      Health Warning


      I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

      All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

      Comment


        #4
        Yes, I was just thinking that being 'penilised' sounds particularly horrible. I think they had a machine for doing that in Warwick Castle.
        'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

        Comment


          #5
          Sharky, just be sure to pass on to your tenants the details of the scheme you've used and their reference number within 14 days, won't you.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by agent46 View Post
            Blimey, I knew the sanctions for non-compliance with TDP were a bit draconian, but that would be just plain mediaeval

            "media eval"

            Well if this means the media get to eval uate the consequences then things are not good !

            The Rodent
            A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
            W.Churchill

            Comment


              #7
              Might be of interest to know had a 'collegue' who represented a client who was attempting to claim 'deposit + sanction' off landlord after it had been returned. Obviouly the claim was for the sanction but the DJ threw it out as the problem of non compliance had been resolved by the deposit being returned. Would assume late protection would have the same effect on any attempt at a claim?? Maybe someone clever (jeffery) could confirm!!!
              Always double check advice... not just mine!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Impartial Advice View Post
                Might be of interest to know had a 'collegue' who represented a client who was attempting to claim 'deposit + sanction' off landlord after it had been returned. Obviouly the claim was for the sanction but the DJ threw it out as the problem of non compliance had been resolved by the deposit being returned. Would assume late protection would have the same effect on any attempt at a claim?? Maybe someone clever (jeffery) could confirm!!!
                'after it had been returned' at the end of the tenancy, or when?

                This is interesting. Logically, if the offence was not protecting the deposit/not supplying tenant with details of the scheme in the first place , i.e.within 14 days, how does the fact that the deposit was later returned to tenant, change anything? Isn't a bit like someone stealing the washing off your line, wearing your clothes for a bit then returning some (but not all) the items later, when you complain?) The original offence in that case was still theft; is it 'wiped out' by the return of some of what was taken?

                Please would someone explain this judge's thinking?
                'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by mind the gap View Post

                  Please would someone explain this judge's thinking?
                  Although not exactly on all fours with this situation, I've set out reasons why remedial compliance is possible in another thread. I'll have a look for it and then re-post.

                  Here: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...8&postcount=19
                  Health Warning


                  I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                  All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Late notification is no automatic breach of tenant rights

                    What you need to read is this transcript from a unreported court ruling in August:

                    Late notification is no automatic breach of tenant rights.

                    27 August 2008

                    A landlord who had taken and properly placed his tenant’s deposit in a prescribed Tenancy Deposit Scheme but failed to notify the tenant of the details of the scheme within the statutory 14 days was not in breach of the law (Harvey v Bamforth, Sheffield County Court, unreported).

                    Overruling the findings of the first instance judge, Bullimore J in the Sheffield County Court said the landlord should not be liable to pay the statutory penalty of three times the deposit for failure to register or protect the deposit.

                    The case started as the landlord initiated possession proceedings for rent arrears, during which the omission came to light.

                    The tenant was then given the prescribed information but the Citizens Advice Bureau which was acting for the tenant nevertheless proceeded with the application for the penalty, in this case of £1,500.

                    The Residential Landlords Association intervened in support of the landlord. Their lawyer, Richard Jones, partner at Bury and Walkers in Leeds said: "the judge ruled that information being given late did not mean that the penalty was payable because the information had been provided before the tenant submitted his application."
                    However, Jones continued: "Whether the cut-off point for compliance is before a tenant lodges an application with the court, or before the date of the hearing itself, was not clarified. But our interpretation, in line with government intention, favours the date of the actual hearing."

                    James Archer, a solicitor at Bury and Walkers who assisted Jones on the cases told Solicitors Journal that the explanatory notes to the Housing Act make it clear that the legislation was not intended to apply so strictly to such circumstances.

                    "The tenant's victory at first instance caused particular concern for landlords because the Citizens Advice Bureau claimed there were hundreds of similar cases waiting to be heard", said Archer. "It is now clear that provided the landlord supplies the certificate and other prescribed information without delays outside the 14 day statutory limit, he will not be in breach of the Act".
                    The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Yes, but that LL had actually protected the deposit properly; he just failed to notify the tenants of the scheme within 14 days.

                      Would not protecting it at all not be seen as a more serious act of non-compliance?

                      And we still don't seem to have answered the question about whether the Ll can still be sued for the 3x if he has not protected, etc but has returned, or offered to return, the deposit.

                      Does anyone know?
                      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                      Comment


                        #12
                        So basically we have a system of - comply immediately only if you get caught, otherwise don't bother?

                        Although 3 x deposit is way too draconian for merely a late notification, surely there should be some compulsion. Perhaps a nominal fine for late compliance as opposed to non-compliance.

                        I've been in my place for 8 months and still don't know if my deposit is protected or not.
                        Now signature free.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Yep seems daft. I agree a sliding scale would be better for compliance within 28 days, within 3 months etc or not within 14 days of being asked by tenant - if it gets to that.

                          Why don't you just phone up the three schemes to see if you are covered?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Subway View Post
                            Yep seems daft. I agree a sliding scale would be better for compliance within 28 days, within 3 months etc or not within 14 days of being asked by tenant - if it gets to that.

                            Why don't you just phone up the three schemes to see if you are covered?
                            I didn't know I could do that, thanks.
                            Now signature free.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Thanks for that.... wish I had more time to contributre to this good cause!!!
                              Always double check advice... not just mine!

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X