Not sure if I am responsible for adding central heating to property

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Sophie.Durrant View Post
    I feel sorry for you if that's how you get your kicks.
    Please note that we have "seen it all" we have seen people lose their house to pay off the solicitors bills, to get people out, we have seen people trash houses and still be able to claim £ 2000 none deposit protection, we have seen no rent forthcoming for 10 months, and landlord having to take out a loan to pay their mortgage company because no rent was coming in

    All above and more is possible if someone does not know the "ropes"

    Would you rather us all say, don't worry, all will be fine, or advise you of any pitfalls.

    We are advising of pitfalls, and maybe in a way you don't like, but we are all unpaid, and save a lot of people vast amounts of combined money on solicitors fees.
    Sometimes, and yes, we have to sometimes be forcefull to get home the seriousness of SOME items, otherwise "some" do not listen.

    Take the advice as well meaning.
    As said, we are fearfull for YOU, and want to help you, so just listen and take on board what is said.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Sophie.Durrant View Post
      I understand that you are a lot more experienced at this stuff than I am,
      That's the point though, I'm not. I was a first time landlord in the not too distant past, I didn't know for certain what my obligations were as a landlord so I found out before I rented. Getting the deposit protected is a fundamental part of landlording and has been since it came in in 2007, hence my comment about it not being just about rent collection.

      They say people learn from their mistakes but this mistake becomes a very costly one to learn from. You're not alone either. The subject of not protecting the deposit comes up on here almost every other day.
      "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

      What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

      Comment


        #18
        Wannadonnadoodah,

        Sorry for my reaction, I just panicked. I am not normally a stupid person, and as I said I thought I had all of the bases covered so it's probably that I'm annoyed with myself for not checking it out properly as that is what I would normally do.

        So now I am wondering what's best to do, should I put it in a deposit scheme anyway or is there no point? By registering the deposit on a protection scheme I will be required to let the tenant know what I have done, thereby making her aware that it has not been protected until now, so there goes 'Don't panic' point A, and this will enable her to make a claim against me in which case as I understand it I will either have to pay it back to her or pay it into a scheme as I should have done in the first place, and then it would seem that I would have no way of getting the tenant out if I needed to. It seems I'm damned either way so there is still a level of panic because I've been a bit of an idiot really haven't I?

        Comment


          #19
          Basically damned if you do, damned if you don't. The part about it being black and white is just that. "Was the deposit protected within 30 days and the prescribed information given to the tenant" if the answer to that question is anything other than yes then a claim can be made, regardless of what you do now with the deposit.

          If you register the deposit in a scheme they will contact the T with the details of the protection. You say this would trigger the tenant into knowing the deposit isn't protected but, if they knew the law, they would know this already as they should have had info about where it is once it was protected so you might have a tenant who doesn't know the process. The only problem is the time scale in which a claim can be made and if they would have a single conversation with someone / seek advice / see an advert relating to this issue. The other thing is, when the T is given their marching orders they may come onto a forum such as this and ask for advice and the deposit question (similarly to you) will be one of the first questions asked as it totally changes the situation.
          "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

          What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.

          Comment


            #20
            There isn't too much point in protecting now. You could play dumb and just give your tenants a cheque and say, 'here's a cheque for your deposit back as I forgot to lodge it' Make sure you get a receipt if you do this. . At least then, if you want to serve an S21, then you can relax knowing it is valid should an eviction need to go as far as court. Many tenants find alternative accommodation quickly so there is no need to go to court.

            The other thing in your favour, in order to sue you, the tenants have to initially outlay quite a bit in Court costs (this itself is quite a deterrent) and, as you have already refunded the deposit, the judge is more likely to award the minimum of 1 x deposit.

            Comment


              #21
              If I got her to sign a new fixed term agreement once this one has expired rather than letting it continue on a statutory periodic basis, can I protect the deposit the against the new agreement?
              I was reading about that superstike vs. Rodrigues case and it says "The Court of Appeal has ruled that when the tenancy continued on a statutory periodic basis in 2008 a new tenancy was made and a new deposit was deemed to have been received, and therefore fell under the requirements of tenancy deposit protection legislation."

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Sophie.Durrant View Post
                I was reading about that superstike vs. Rodrigues case
                That was just a clarification of the law. It means that the landlord has to serve the deposit "Prescribed Information" again when there is a new tenancy agreement or the tenancy goes periodic.

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X