deposit protection and s.48

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

    deposit protection and s.48

    Hi,

    Just got a case that I woud like some advice on if possible. L has offered choice of either protecting deposit (for fee of £40) or to not pay the £40 and L keep deposit. Obviously most tenants have opted not to pay.

    While not protecting the deposit is obviously a breach of the HA2004 is it correct to charge? Opinions seem to differ - but it seems incorrect practice in my opinion. While people seem to think it is a service for T and T should pay - L is commiting an offence if he doesn't. Is anyone aware of any case law on this?

    Additionaly, this same L has provided a PO Box no for an address. Again opinions differ. S48 does not seem to stipulate one way or the other - but a PO box no is not a physical address.

    Thanks in advance for any advice.

    #2
    If T refuses to pay, L still has not protect the deposit and will actually be penalised if he does not.

    As for address, not sure if PO box is ok. As s.48 just stipulates "an address", it might be.
    In any case anyone can request Royal Mail to disclose what address is behind a PO box, and Royal Mail must disclose it...

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by creswell View Post
      While not protecting the deposit is obviously a breach of the HA2004 is it correct to charge?
      There's no law against charging a fee. Sure, the LL is nevertheless obliged to protect, but he could still, theoretically, pursue the T for the fee if he didn't pay it (and had contractually agreed to pay it).

      Additionaly, this same L has provided a PO Box no for an address. Again opinions differ. S48 does not seem to stipulate one way or the other - but a PO box no is not a physical address.
      It has to be an address in England/Wales. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/48

      Opinions do indeed differ. I don't know the answer. But the T may demand the actual name/address of the LL under s.1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

      Comment


        #4
        If landlord feels he must charge the tenant a fee, IMHO it is better to charge a single, comprehensive, admin fee.
        Tenants are used to paying such a fee when letting through a letting agent, and it avoids spoiling the relationship so early...

        Comment


          #5
          The landlord is certainly being a numpty if nothing else - a canny tenant would do the following.

          1. Pay 2 months rent as a deposit
          2. Not pay the LL's fee
          3. Wait for 30+ days of the tenancy to pass
          4. Sue for 3 x deposit (6 months rent) for non protection
          5. Sue for 3 x deposit (6 months rent) for failure to provide prescribed info (This one may be a bit of a stretch)
          6. Sit back and live rent free for 6 to 12 months.

          Comment


            #6
            You can't sue twice for failing to protect deposit...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by westminster View Post
              It has to be an address in England/Wales. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/48

              Opinions do indeed differ. I don't know the answer. But the T may demand the actual name/address of the LL under s.1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
              It cannot be a PO Box Number. The LTA 1985 stipulates an address i.e. identifiable premises.
              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


                #8
                Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                It cannot be a PO Box Number. The LTA 1985 stipulates an address i.e. identifiable premises.
                I cannot find anything in the Act which defines an address as an identifiable premises. Is there another statute which applies and which stipulates 'identifiable premises'? Or are you simply giving an opinion, (as I said, opinions differ).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Whatever s.1 of LTA 1985 might say, it is. Ot relevant to s.48 of LTA 1987, which is less restrictive as just requiring an address for service of notices (s.1 requires the landlord's address)

                  Edit:
                  Relevant blog post and comments: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/201...y-7-addresses/

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X