Can you take a deposit by installments?

Hello Mark,

I have checked the e mail and i still have a copy of it.

It is from an Administrator at the DPS and is clearly states as follows,

The Deposit only needs to be protected once the full Deposit has been received.

It might be worth you checking this out in case you need to advice future landlords via this web site, as it stands i have it "straight from the horses mouth" that only a full deposit needs to be protected and i have it in writing in case i need to use it in future cases. Generally i make sure my tenants pay a full deposit before moving in so it is something i probably will not be using again.

If i had been wrongly advised by the DPS, i would imagine the solicitor for my previous tenants would of picked up on this and advised me accordingly for their clients best interest. I suspect they did check it out and found that the tenants had no case to press forward so withdrew.

Hope this helps.

Andy

would this not be open to abuse? a 90% deposit could be taken and the rest to paid at a later date so the deposit never needs protecting, a loophole maybe.

Reply to the comment left by "Andrew Holmes" at "28/06/2015 - 11:17":

Hi Andy

I believe you but I think the DPS administrator has made a mistake.
.

If the schemes, who only focus on one specific aspect of -the deposit- can't even get the rules right, then there's no hope for us all!

If the administrator is mistaken, that is a poor show from them.

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "28/06/2015 - 12:39":

We all make mistakes Luke, whether in right or wrong this will not be the first or the last time a mistake is made.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/06/2015 - 12:58":

With the expected respect, Mark, what a silly response! Of course individuals make mistakes, but if you're an organisation such as the DPS, you should jolly well make sure you get it right! We would not be afforded any such leeway if we were to make a mistake on similar lines. A Judge would throw the book at us. They have one job...get it right.

As my grandmother who was an intensive care nurse always used to say, "If I make a mistake, someone dies!" That's why she had little sympathy for anyone who wouldn't do their (often simpler) job right and right first time.

Not good enough.

I take your point that no matter what I or anyone else says/does will free the world from mistakes by individuals, but that doesn't stop me being annoyed, having no sympathy and expecting better levels of service.

Just to make things even more confusing there are a couple of web site links regarding deposit protection below. It would appear that the DPS have a policy about the landlord making up the short fall of a tenants deposit, however there is room for you not to break the rules if you dont protect a part deposit with the DPS.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/03/24/why-you-should-never-allow-your-tenant-to-pay-the-deposit-by-installments/

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/11/13/tenancy-deposit-court-of-appeal-decision-the-judges-dilemma/

The DPS web site itself does not state that a part deposit has to protected under legislation. I am guessing it is still a grey area which is not very helpful for Landlords trying to help tenants, if a tenant turned up and paid a months rent in advance but was short on the deposit how many Landlords would turn them away. The protection schemes should make Tenants accountable and state that it is the Tenants responsibility to have protection under the schemes by paying a full deposit up front. Making a Landlord responsible for a tenants part deposit payment is just the schemes way of pointing a finger to blame a someone.

The protection schemes should be independent and only offer protection for tenants who pay a full deposit.

Andy

Deposit schemes do not give legal advice. In any case, considering their track record (Superstrike and al.) they really shouldn't and I would not rely on anything they might say since it is usually unsubstantiated.

The law states that a 'tenancy deposit' is money held by the landlord as security.
It therefore seems to me that, if the deposit is paid in instalments, each instalment matches that definition and all requirements must be complied with within 30 days of receipt.

The only potential argument to the contrary I could think of is to state in the tenancy agreement that the money becomes a deposit only once the full sum is received.
But then if the tenant never paid in full the landlord would have no deposit and would have to return the full amount of what was paid in any case.

I would not want to risk arguing any of that in court.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain Garcin" at "28/06/2015 - 13:41":

It's pathetic of them, isn't it? They accept the money, but they don't really know all the ins and outs of what they're taking the money for!

This was all to take the money from the landlord...when the deposit scheme rules came in, I was holding £50k+ in deposits (and making good interest too), the government decided they'd have a piece of that action.