Late tenancy deposit protection fines

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/02/2014 - 18:54":

Whether deposit was protected or not in relation to tenancy A is not relevant to the question of when the deposit is received in relation to tenancy B.

If deposit was indeed protected in relation to tenancy A, whether or not re-protection is needed in relation to tenancy B is up to the scheme.

Oh Mark

Mr Prisk was generally thought a complete chump - his statement you quote above is about the only one he ever made that was well received.

I agree with Romain's analysis above.

And I could change lots of Statutes for you by inserting "and" or "if" and above all, "or" at the right point.

Romain is again correct.

But I'd express it a bit differently. The deposits need protecting at all times. what you need to do to achieve that in terms of re-protection is up to the Schemes to set up and implement.

Another reason DPS is best - you don't have to do anything.

But PI is a totally different matter and the last people I'd listen to in terms of that are Schemes - it is the Statute that matters there.

Not sure if it was in this thread years ago where the question of incremental deposit payments was raised. Basically as I thought and said what is received must be protected within 30 days.

Then receive more and either re-protect the whole lot within 30 days of receiving the second lot, or protect the second lot separately.

Don't forget the PI though!

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "13/02/2014 - 19:08":

Agreed.
The statute has a specific paragraph on PI, which must be adhered to whatever the scheme's requirements re. protection might be!

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "13/02/2014 - 18:09":

Many thanks Romain

Apols again re DPS 13.2.14 at 1908

By re-protect the whole lot I didn't mean start again.

I mean add it to the original deposit. As with so much to do with DPS and their superior more user friendly systems I don't think you need to do anything for them apart from perhaps confirm the increased amount under the relevant codes/PINS etc or via the Online Form?

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "14/02/2014 - 09:15":

Am I beginning to sense that you have a slight bias towards DPS? LOL

As a matter of interest, you wouldn't happen to know what the market share is for the three deposit protection companies is England and wales would you? Better still if you have these statistics broken down between lettings agents and landlords using these schemes.

My gut feeling is that my|deposits will be a clear cut favourite for landlords. I'm not so sure about agents though.
.

Hi Eric

I, too, have experienced the same sort of situation in the past with a tenant not having paid the full amount at the time of signing in. I did however register the 3/4 amount that I did receive, but only due to the fact that I already had experience in these matters. With hindsight, I would now refuse to let the tenant move in until all monies were received, although this is easier said than done when you have a candidate 'on your doorstep' and an empty property sitting there!

Chances are that nothing will come of it, however, it is a good lesson learned and something you'll be aware of in future.

Best,
Hazel

@Mark

No idea but the figures are easily extrapolated from the deposits they hold divided by the average deposit probably now £1000 for easy sums.

TDS (the real TDS!!) originally had most agents as they were agent only, Mydeposits second on agents as they were really designed for Landlords, and DPS was mainly originally Landlords. Following the debacle of the TDS fee structure a few years ago lots of agents left them and went to Mydeposits and DPS.

I have always been biased in favour of DPS because it was the only scheme ever needed provided it was efficient, paid out deposits quickly etc. In terms of losses that Mary Latham mentioned of course if DPS held the lot that would rapidly change.

If you want to protect a tenant's deposit I still fail to see how allowing an agent or Landlord to hold it achieves that objective. I quite understand why agents and Landlords want to hold the money, not that it does them the slightest bit of good if they hold it correctly, I just don't understand why they are allowed to.

Scotland has made lobby pressure mistakes as well, but at least they held out and all schemes there are custodial.

Be back on the summary position I promised end of week

Hi there, really hope you can help us.
My husband and I have a converted garage annexe flat on side of our property and we rented it out in November 2014, we advertised over gumtree and a couple offered us £850 rent and they gave us £850 deposit. We held it in a separate account which was only used for the deposit and rent. I had rented a flat many years ago and I just did the same this time. We just didn't know anything about the DPS.. we were just were not clued up enough. This was a side income that helped pay the bills while I was off work with our baby. The couple were lovely, shared our garden and everyone was happy.

The 6months tenancy finished in May 15 and the couple really wanted a new year long contract. We agreed and did another tenancy agreement with them. Once this was signed everything changed, he began operating a builders business from this small annexe flat, they dumped building rubbish and things in and around the property, mixers, concrete, rubble. They became noisy, dirty and wanted to build outside. We sent them an email asking them to abide by the tenancy agreement and if they could not, we were happy for them to give us notice. In August they gave us 1 months notice which we accepted. We found another tenant to move in earlier which worked for everyone. There were a few things that needed doing, carpets cleaning, plastering bits, repainting because of the mess they made. They said they would do it but in the end they didn't. So we got the work done, agreed everything with them, agreed any costs before taking from their deposit. We then provided all receipts and We paid them back £450 of their £850. We did the check out inventories, gave them receipts for everything , doing check out correctly.

Our new tenant asked if his deposit would be held in an escrow account which started me looking online and we realised then that we should have done this before and that we needed to use a DPS scheme now which we promptly did for the new tenant.

We didn't think much more about it..... But Today, we received a letter from a solicitor (i think its a no win no fee company). The first tenants are taking us to court for not holding the deposit in a DPS. They solicitors are demanding £5,100. They say the tenants are owed 3 x £850 for the first tenancy (6 months) and a further 3 x £850 for the year long tenancy agreement. Although we did not take any additional deposit.

Now having read and read forum articles and information we know that they can take us to court and the court can slap a penalty of between 1x - 3x the £850 deposit. But would they do that on the rolled over second tenancy agreement ? I don't think the tenants even have any of the tenancy agreements as they dumped them in the bin when they left, does that help our case? Should we see a solicitor asap?

Can you help us at all? We know ignorance isn't a factor that the law takes into account!! but what can we do now to hope for minimal damage to us?

We are in a bit of a state, this is so much money for us

They have phoned us early hours of the morning, laughing and jeering and sent us texts and come back in their van and dumped building rubbish outside our house.
Thanks in advance