Late tenancy deposit protection fines

I need to correct an earlier posting in this thread 10:16 on 11.2.14 wherein I suggested that a change was under way to introduce the same system in E&W as Scotland whereby the Landlord has to agree to ADR.

What has actually happened is it has been suggested to Govt that they make the change, they haven’t indicated whether they will take this forward or not. To me it seems the same thing but I realise now that of course it is not, it is the lobbying for a change that is under way, not the change itself.

One other thing, I referred to 3 providers and 5 schemes in Scotland but of course this is NI - as Scotland is custodial only, with 3 providers each running 1 custodial scheme.

See I told you all I make mistakes - I remember making one in 1997 as well!!

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "11/02/2014 - 10:23":

So if a tenancy went periodic on 26/5/11, which had a protected deposit with DPS and PI issued at the start of the fixed term within 14 days of physical receipt, but the failure was to reissue the PI at the periodic date ( highlighted by Superstrike ) then when is the breach? Is it 31 days after 26/5/11 actual periodic date or 6/5/12 - 31 days after 6/4/12 when the a Localism act took effect? Hence could someone please confirm when they think that the 6 years expires. Many thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Scott 44 " at "13/02/2014 - 15:59":

Hi Scott

There are several opinions on this scenario following the Superstrike case, however, that's all they are, just opinions.

My own opinion is that if/when such a case comes to Court there will be a different ruling to the Superstrike case on the basis that the deposit was protected in the first instance. That could just be wishful thinking on my part and the many professional advisers who share my opinion but I reiterate, it is only opinion and only a Court can decide.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/02/2014 - 16:07":

Thank you Mark

Like you I find no peace in the wake of Superstrike as there has been no further formal clarification to stem the impact this could have on thousands of landlords and letting agents.

As you say, until there is a case more specific to the failure to reissue PI at periodic, we will not know the outcome. My wishful thinking was that by now the government would have taken steps to remedy the implications as this a national issue & I echo the thoughts of another poster on this forum that it is a disgrace to have left us all treading water.

For future financial planning sake I suppose that the best we can hope for is that a large percentage of our properties will outlast 6/5/18 without claim.

Reply to the comment left by "Scott 44 " at "13/02/2014 - 16:19":

Either that or pay professional advisers a small fortune to find a solution to a problem which may or may not actually exist!

For me I had to do that as the consequences of a COP decision going the wrong way would be potentially catastrophic for my business.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Robert M " at "13/02/2014 - 11:47":

1. There is no problem in that scenario: whenever the contract to create a new tenancy is signed, the deposit is held in relation to the existing tenancy until that tenancy is replace by the newly agreed one.
This is essentially as in the Superstrike case, and the deposit should be deemed received in relation with the new tenancy when that tenancy actually begins.

2. No. A periodic tenancy is not a series of one period tenancies but a single tenancy that continues from period to period. A valid notice to quit ends that tenancy.

Hi Mary

You speak as a Landlord. TDP is not there for LL benefit it is there for tenant benefit. Hence why it is so hard to win at ADR because the adjudicator rightly starts from the position it is the tenant's money.

DPS may cost money but answer me this. Since TDP started how many tenants with their money in DPS have lost money because their agent (or Landlord) has spent it?

No tenant is protected from such loss as many have discovered to their shock and amazement because the insurance ONLY PROTECTS MONEY IN DISPUTE not the actual deposit (which almost everyone thinks is what is protected).

I fear I will have to return to address Mark's wishful thinking (which is what it is), Robert M and Scott 44 but not until tomorrow

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "13/02/2014 - 17:52":

That maybe the case with DPS, I can't say for certain as I don't know that.

But WAIT, what if prescribed information wasn't re-served when the tenancy became periodic?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "13/02/2014 - 17:55":

By all means address my "wishful thinking" with your opinion but that all it will be until a Court of Appeal makes a ruling on a case of this nature.

By the way my "wishful thinking" is on behalf of the PRS generally I might add. As I've said before, my back is covered, if only by the PI policies of the advisers who put the solution together for the possibility of problem which is not even proven to exist.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/02/2014 - 17:56":

What may be the case with DPS? (Sorry, don't understand)

Re. PI and statutory periodic AST: Superstrike clarified that deposit is deemed received on the first day of the tenancy, and Housing Act says that PI must be given by "a landlord who has received such a deposit". So... I would not want to argue in court that I did not have to give PI again.