After Your Tenant’s Deposit Is Secured- Prescribed Information Guide

Securing a tenant’s deposit is a pretty run of the mill process for landlords these days. Nothing new there; seems pretty straight forward; you secure your tenant’s deposit online, perhaps simultaneously watch a little bit of porn to fill in the page-loading blanks, job done.

Sadly, the golden days are only but a distant memory. Times have changed, and the Captain runs a tighter ship. I recently secured a tenant’s deposit and there was quite a bit of hoop-jumping required in order to stay on the right side of the law. Actually, I can only pray I did enough- it’s hard to tell these days. You give and you give, but they keep wanting more. Sounds a bit like my wife. Although I’m not actually married, but I imagine that’s what married life is like.

And… that’s probably why I’m not married.

Being a landlord is already convoluted enough with all the bullshit legal obligations and junk, so it became even more frightening when the powers that be, recently reconfirmed how unforgiving they can be. All landlords should already know that protecting their tenant’s deposit into a tenancy deposit scheme is a legal requirement. Alas, protecting it and informing tenants which scheme is used is only fulfilling half the landlord’s legal obligations regarding tenancy deposits. The Powers want more. There’s an entirely separate counter-part process that comes after protecting the deposit which is just as vital, but often neglected.

A recent Court of Appeal decision imposed the maximum penalty on a landlord (3 x the deposit amount) because he DIDN’T provide ALL the prescribed information relating to the protection of the deposit to the tenant. According to the law, the landlord must provide all the prescribed information to the tenant within 30 days of receiving the deposit money as required by the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007.

Now, this isn’t a newly imposed law, the legal obligation for providing the tenant with ALL the prescribed information has been required for a while, but until now no one has been, or at least, only a limited amount of tenants, have been brain-numbingly petty enough to attack that angle. It would be like reporting someone for placing a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down. Believe it or not, that is an act of treason. But who would seriously complain against that nonsense?

What is the Prescribed Information?

This is key information relating to the deposit protection including details about the deposit, the scheme used to protect it, instructions about disputes and key contact information. The legislation says the following information should be provided as part of the PI:

  • 2.—(1) The following is prescribed information for the purposes of section 213(5) of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”)—
    • (a)the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and any fax number of the scheme administrator(1) of the authorised tenancy deposit scheme(2) applying to the deposit;
    • (b)any information contained in a leaflet supplied by the scheme administrator to the landlord which explains the operation of the provisions contained in sections 212 to 215 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Act(3);
    • (c)the procedures that apply under the scheme by which an amount in respect of a deposit may be paid or repaid to the tenant at the end of the shorthold tenancy(4) (“the tenancy”);
    • (d)the procedures that apply under the scheme where either the landlord or the tenant is not contactable at the end of the tenancy;
    • (e)the procedures that apply under the scheme where the landlord and the tenant dispute the amount to be paid or repaid to the tenant in respect of the deposit;
    • (f)the facilities available under the scheme for enabling a dispute relating to the deposit to be resolved without recourse to litigation; and
    • (g)the following information in connection with the tenancy in respect of which the deposit has been paid—
      • (i)the amount of the deposit paid;
      • (ii)the address of the property to which the tenancy relates;
      • (iii)the name, address, telephone number, and any e-mail address or fax number of the landlord;
      • (iv)the name, address, telephone number, and any e-mail address or fax number of the tenant, including such details that should be used by the landlord or scheme administrator for the purpose of contacting the tenant at the end of the tenancy;
      • (v)the name, address, telephone number and any e-mail address or fax number of any relevant person;
      • (vi)the circumstances when all or part of the deposit may be retained by the landlord, by reference to the terms of the tenancy; and
      • (vii)confirmation (in the form of a certificate signed by the landlord) that—
        • (aa)the information he provides under this sub-paragraph is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief; and
        • (bb)he has given the tenant the opportunity to sign any document containing the information provided by the landlord under this article by way of confirmation that the information is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief.
  • (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), the reference to a landlord or a tenant who is not contactable includes a landlord or tenant whose whereabouts are known, but who is failing to respond to communications in respect of the deposit.

Ayannuga v Swindells

The case in question was Ayannuga v Swindells. In summary, the tenant allegedly fell into rent arrears, consequently the landlord sought possession. The tenant responded with a big “Fuck you” and decided to counter-claim against the landlord for not providing him with enough information about the secured tenancy deposit. Incidentally, if the deposit is not correctly secured and the correct information is not provided to the tenant, the landlord cannot serve a valid Section 21 notice, which means he cannot repossess the property from the tenant. That’s the tenant’s motive for being a turd right there.

It’s obvious what happened here- the tenant was clearly scraping the bottom of a barrel, looking for any old counter-claim to either delay possession and/or find any means possible of getting money out of the landlord instead. Turns out the tenant was scratching away in the right gloomy corner, because he managed to do both.

Tossor.

I’d be interested to know who assisted the tenant to make that counter-claim. A part of me despises the individual, the other applauds his/her… actually, no, fuck it, whoever helped the tenant is a moron. I know lawyers have a job to do, and they only follow the guidance of the law, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when they neglect the moral perspective, and purely focus rely on the law for greed.

I’ve read various articles that have already discussed this issue, and many people felt justice was served, and the landlord deserved to be made an example of (I’m sure some of you feel the same). While the landlord did fail to comply with the law in it’s entirety on this issue, the bigger picture is still relevant to me. Perhaps that’s besides the point, and clearly irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

If the landlord didn’t provide any information regarding the protection of the deposit, then that’s another issue. But as it turns out, the information that was omitted by the landlord was in fact publicly available, and could have been found easily by the tenant on their own. So I can only assume the landlord protected the deposit, told the tenant where it was protected, and provided them with a Deposit Submission Confirmation/Certificate (provided by the deposit protection scheme)… yet, miraculously, still fell short of what was required and managed to get prosecuted.

Now the question begs to be asked… did this particular landlord really need to be made an example of?

Unfortunately, this case may have opened the floodgates for many tenants to do the same thing, as I’m sure many landlords have failed to provide all the prescribed information, even while protecting the deposit. You can bet your bottom dollar on the fact that anyone that has the legal authority to advise tenants on how to prolong repossession will grab this lifeline, so it’s more important than ever for landlords to make sure they completely fulfill their legal obligations when it comes to securing deposits.

So what should you do after your tenant’s deposit is secured?

When you take a deposit from your tenant on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) in England and Wales you will need to Protect the deposit with a government authorised scheme with in 30 days of receiving the deposit. Assuming you have done that, you will then need to provide the tenant(s) with the Prescribed Information also within 30 days of receiving the deposit from your tenant.

Most deposit schemes are being helpful by providing landlords with “Prescribed information” download packs, which covers everything they should be handing over to tenants. I’ve put together a list of the information you should be serving to your tenants, along with the relevant download links depending on which deposit scheme you use. Each tenancy deposit scheme has its own rules setting out in detail how it operates.

SchemeDescriptionRequired to be served to tenants
TDS logoWith Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) you must give your tenant and any third parties who have contributed towards the deposit everything listed on the right.

Here is a direct link to policies specified by the scheme

DPS logoIf using DPS you must give your tenant and any third parties who have contributed towards the deposit everything listed.

Here is a direct link to policies specified by the scheme

MyDeposits logoIf using MyDeposits you must give your tenant and any third parties who have contributed towards the deposit everything listed.

Here is a direct link to policies specified by the scheme

I recommend checking the scheme’s website for the most up-to-date legislation and download links! What I have provided is merely a guide, which may eventually get out-dated.

Re-issuing Prescribed information and periodic tenancies

Please note… there was a time when the Prescribed information needed to re-issued when a fixed tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy. Since the Deregulation Act 2015 was introduced, the rules have changed; if the tenancy rolls over into a new fixed term AST or a statutory periodic tenancy there is NO need to re-issue the Prescribed Information as long as:

  • The deposit was properly protected and Prescribed Information served at the start of the original tenancy
  • The property let remains the same
  • The tenant(s) remain the same
  • The landlord(s) remain the same
  • The deposit protection scheme used remains the same

Source of above information: RLA

Prescribed Information Release Form

In light of penalties landlords could face if deposits are not secured and the correct Prescribed Information (P.I) being served, I have put together a Tenancy Deposit P.I release form, which I ask my tenants to sign. The form confirms that they have been provided with the Prescribed Information. You can download a copy by entering your name and email address below.








Download your FREE Tenancy Deposit Prescribed Information Release Form

Sign up to the Landlord Newsletter to download your FREE Landlord Tenancy Deposit Prescribed Information Form. You’ll receive a download link, along with regular updates via email, which will include notifications of every time I publish a new awesome landlord blog post, discount codes and special offers exclusive just for you!

The form can be modified to suit your requirements/needs.

Like this post? Then maybe you should sign up to my FREE newsletter so you receive more like it!

27 Comments- Join The Conversation...

Guest Avatar
rob 4th February, 2013 @ 18:21

Good read....but one thing about the 4 page form has go me confused, under the tanants section:

"Contact address to be used by The Landlord at the end of the tenancy:"

how are you supposed to know that, get a time machine?

1
Guest Avatar
Benji 4th February, 2013 @ 19:13

'Unfortunately, this case may have opened the floodgates for many tenants to do the same thing, as I’m sure many landlords have failed to provide all the prescribed information'

Maybe.

But when you are watching your tatooed girlfriend on the Jeremy Kyle show again, have you ever noticed those annoying adverts in between?

You know the one-
"Did you slip on your kebab last night when coming home pissed??
Did you bounce on your fat arse and put your head thru' your landlords glass front door???
Was the glass toughened to B.S EN12150????

-If it wasn't, you could be entitled to compensation!
You get to keep every penny of the 20 quid compo!!
Our 20 grand fees are all paid for by the other side.
We are BastardLawyersDraggingTheCountryDownForU!!!"

Not that I ever watch Jeremy myself (..ahem). But I have never seen an advert saying if your landlord hasn't served you 50 pages of shite, then you could have a claim.

I'm guessing (but don't take this as my usual Gospel) it is because, unless the landlord admits to not supplying the prescribed info, it is up to the tenant to prove they didn't- a very difficult thing to do.

Different matter if the landlord was the claimant (as per your example).

But I could be wrong...

2
Guest Avatar
Benji 4th February, 2013 @ 19:15

"Contact address to be used by The Landlord at the end of the tenancy:"

how are you supposed to know that, get a time machine?

You normally use their next of kin (not co-habitees obviously).

3
Guest Avatar
rob 4th February, 2013 @ 19:34

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to produce one pdf that you can print of in one go?..... No they try to stitch people up.

I went to the site and it's clear to find the form and the t&c's but the other two really clear and if I hadn't read this I would even have thought about providing them.

4
Guest Avatar
EMMA 5th February, 2013 @ 09:39

As a private landlord, I do not charge an admin fee for new tenants. With all these reams of paper you have to provide to the tenants now, I think I will have to consider introducing a charge to cover the costs.

If tenants cannot familiarise themselves with the in's and out's of the scheme their deposits are held in, then I would question whether they have the mental capacity to sign a legally binding tenancy agreement!

5
Guest Avatar
Peter 16th February, 2013 @ 19:05

Please can anyone provide advise....
I was new to letting and tenant moved in in August for 6 months. I overlooked putting deposit in DPS for a number of valid reasons (hospital).
The tenant has intimated they may be leaving but has not given notice in writing but has however issued a letter claimed there deposit back + x 3!!! When they go. I have as soon as I became aware put deposit in scheme. How do I stand on this?

6
Guest Avatar
Benji 16th February, 2013 @ 22:58

Peter,

I would return the deposit now, immediately.

As the tenant is threatening a claim against you, I would regard the business agreement as being irretrievably ended.

To that end, I would issue a section 21 notice as soon as the deposit has been returned and carry it through all the way to eviction.

I would do this to my own timescale and at my own convenience.

I would not admit any liability if there were valid reasons. If the tenant wishes to pursue you through the courts, then make them prove it.

If they do take you to court, then counterclaim for all the eviction costs and all property damages.

I would far rather let a court decide the up to 3x the deposit award than to have some 'where there is a blame claim' toerag put a gun to my head.

7
Guest Avatar
Tracey 11th September, 2013 @ 14:41

I am a tenant and my LL has been rather unfair to me throughout the time I have been here. I have been here since 2006. I believe that the deposit scheme thing became a legal requirement after that. I received a letter in 2011 informing me that my deposit had been submitted to one of these schemes, that was the only correspondence I received in regard to this. Does this mean that I could potentially sue them for 3x the amount of my deposit? I know you will think I am a turd (in your words) for considering this, but I am moving out in less than a month and I would like to stick two fingers up to my rude and greedy landlord.

8
Guest Avatar
Jim 8th August, 2014 @ 16:59

Its ridiculous typical governemnt bollocks - like is said above a one - two page pdf with a weblink is more than adequate of tightly packed minisucle bullshit that no one ever reads.

9
Guest Avatar
emma 21st October, 2014 @ 09:07

I'm going though this with my landlord. I WAS GIVEN A SECTION 21 DUE TO LANDLORD WANTING TO MOVE BACK IN. But now I am having to fight it because the council will jot help me and are encouraging tenants to claim the money back. The law was not followed by the landlord and I'm sure if I did something wrong like not pay my rent she would do the same. You are all money grabbing piece's of shits. Thank you

10
Guest Avatar
Kate 6th November, 2014 @ 22:01

I have many deposits with the DPS and have always given tenants an A4 piece of paper advising where their deposit is and how to access the scheme online to manage their deposit when they vacate. I certainly haven't given out all of the information the kind gentleman has added download links for further up. Does this mean that any notice I serve is invalid if I end up with a tenant that challenges it? Is there anything that can be done to rectify this error because if not how would I ever serve a successful notice on current tenants in my properties? TIA

11
Guest Avatar
Inthemoshpitt 5th February, 2015 @ 08:06

Ditto to what Kate said.
Does anybody know?
I've got new tenants moving in and this time I'm doing everything myself without any letting agent, so I was doing more research when I stumbled upon this fab blog/website. My existing tenants have been in now a little over a year and I've informed them reg the DPS, but I certainly didn't print out 14+ pages of bullshit. Where do I stand with them now??
I have got rent protection insurance, but that maybe invalid, because I didn't comply with the law. Even though the law is a jackass in this case. Can I do anything now to rectify this?
Thanks

12
Guest Avatar
emma 6th April, 2015 @ 22:33

This article is appalling, referring to Tennant's as turds etc. They pay you money for probably living in poorly maintained properties, as king for repairs etc that take forever.
Personally as someone who in their lifetime has paid nearly £200,000 and shafted on deposit by every landlord.
Turds are the fat cat greedy individuals who see dollar signs when they blink! LANDLORDS!!
Tenants merely fight their rights, trying to survive.
Besides which if its that difficult with turd tenants....GET A DIFFERENT CAREER.

13
Guest Avatar
emma 6th April, 2015 @ 22:37

Well said Emma 21/10/2014, money grabbing pieces of sh@t they are, praying on societies most vulnerable.
What lovely people they must be to know...... Not, eugh, greed is so ugly

14
Guest Avatar
emma 6th April, 2015 @ 22:43

I don't want your newsletter, I think what you say is disgusting about tenants, without societies vulnerable you wouldn't be filthy rich! Yuk, awful, mercenary and give it time, the tenants are communicating, thats
what the landlords and letting agents are unaware of...yet, cannot wait myself, tee hee!!

15
Guest Avatar
EMMA THE LANDLORD 7th April, 2015 @ 09:09

If you do not like what is discussed on this site may I suggest you remove yourself and find a tenants discussion forum !

16
Guest Avatar
DJG 20th April, 2015 @ 23:09

This article is disingenuous and promotes bad practice amongst landlords, all whilst typifying the blame culture that the author attempts to criticise.

Complying with the deposit rules is pretty simply: you protect in one of 3 authorised schemes within 30 days and you provide your tenants with the certificate proving that you've protected the deposit and a small guidance leaflet. It is neither 'pages and pages' or particular dense material. Considering the commitment you are making to allow a tenant into your property, there is really no excuse for not complying with that extra bit of paperwork, especially since the government has been trying to clean that area up and have implemented some pretty harsh penalties to do so.

Also, on the topic of what Benji suggested someone do if faced with this issue: you would be incredibly stupid to try to challenge the tenant to go the court route. The nature of the claim means that the court costs will easily go to about £1,500 (it isn't a small claim), your conduct is taken into account by the judge when setting the figure of the penalty and there is a good chance you'll be liable for most of the court fees too because it's fairly easy to prove if a landlord hasn't complied with the law in this area. If a landlord is reading this, far better to try to negotiate a settlement for as low as you can and get the tenant to sign a settlement agreement.

17
The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 20th April, 2015 @ 23:22

@DJG

How is the article promoting bad practise when it's explaining what is (and was) required to comply with the law?

Did you actually read the article? It doesn't seem like you did. Sounds like you got raged before reading it all. It also sounds like you don't even understand or appreciate the history of protecting the deposit.

When it was initially made clear that the "prescribed information" was required to be served, there was a lot of confusion to what exactly that consisted of. It was a grey area, because it hadn't been specified or really tested.

It was only later on, much later on, that the schemes made downloadable/printable "prescribed information" forms available, which covers what needed to be served- only a few pages. That's why I made the "update" in the article (it's clearly noted!).

Complying with the deposit rules is simple and clearer "NOW", but that's only been the case until recently, and it definitely wasn't when the article was written. It was only a few weeks ago new legislations came into play to tighten up the rules.

Before all the clarifications, it was a guessing game, so just to protect our own backs, I printed whatever information available, hence the "pages and pages. That's all made clear in the article.

Seriously, what's wrong with you (besides from your irrational and misguided nonsense)?

18
Guest Avatar
DJG 21st April, 2015 @ 00:43

'A recent Court of Appeal decision imposed the maximum penalty on a landlord (3 x the deposit amount) because he DIDN’T provide ALL the prescribed information relating to the protection of the deposit to the tenant.'

The Localism Act didn't apply to the facts of this case (which were pre-2011), as is mentioned repeatedly in the judgment. They therefore didn't impose the maximum penalty on the landlord: they imposed the only penalty on the landlord that the legislation allowed(3x).

'If the landlord didn’t provide any information regarding the protection of the deposit, then that’s another issue. But as it turns out, the information that was omitted by the landlord was in fact publicly available, and could have been found easily by the tenant on their own.'

This was also dealt with in the judgment: the legislation clearly states that it is the landlord's responsibility to provide this information. Whether a tenant is capable of accessing it himself is irrelevant. And if it is that easy to access, there is really no good reason for not supplying it considering the penalties associated with non-compliance.

'Being a landlord is already convoluted enough with all the bullshit legal obligations and junk,'

This is kind of thing that promotes bad practice because it encourages landlords not to take their legal obligations seriously in favour of an illusory moral superiority to what the law should be. In the government discussions (which are available in parliamentary notes and via Hansard) that accompanied these laws, there were good reasons put forward for the severity of the penalty (and note, not claim or compensation) to be imposed by the courts for non-compliance, the main one being the necessity to clean up an area that was regularly abused by landlords.

'When it was initially made clear that the "prescribed information" was required to be served, there was a lot of confusion to what exactly that consisted of. It was a grey area, because it hadn't been specified or really tested.'

The case that you cite was heard in 2012. The Housing Act 2004 made clear that 'prescribed information' was required to be served, and this was defined fairly well in The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 that you've linked to. Are you suggesting that between 2007 and March 2012, that there wouldn't have been online guides, blogs or discussion groups for landlords detailing what would need to be done to ensure they were compliant? And if not, surely consulting a lawyer on statutory interpretation would have cleared up the issue sufficiently to be able to guard against such claims?

'Complying with the deposit rules is simple and clearer "NOW", but that's only been the case until recently, and it definitely wasn't when the article was written.'

I'm assuming that the article was written in 2013 based upon the first comment (feel free to correct this) and therefore after the Localism Act. In which case the main change between now and when that article was written would be the Superstrike case and the Deregulation Act, both of which primarily deal with whether Prescribed Information needed to be re-issued when an assured shorthold tenancy converted to a statutory periodic tenancy. As your post doesn't deal with this issue, I'm not sure what's clearer now that wasn't when the article was written?

19
The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 21st April, 2015 @ 08:33

Weird. Most of what you said was irrelevant to what you started off saying and what I responded with. Now you've spiralled into other realms, most of which are petty points, and ones I didn't even disagree with.

1) The point was, the penalty was 3 x the rent.

2) I never said it wasn't the landlords responsibility to supply the information.

I said I thought it was petty/unreasonable for the tenant to prosecute on those grounds- because he could have found out the details himself. That's my opinion.

3) I think it's a bullshit legal obligation. And? I don't think that promotes bad practise, I'm still complying even though it's bullshit. If anything, that promotes good practise.

Anyays, subjective and a petty point to pick up on. I'm sure there are many laws you comply with which you don't agree with.

4) You initially said the scheme rules are "pretty simple" and now you say I should have consulted with a lawyer to clarify. How does that make it simple?

And like I said, it was never clear what needed to be supplied so I supplied everything. Yes, I read other resources, and the general consensus lacked clarity.

"any information contained in a leaflet supplied by the scheme administrator to the landlord which explains the operation of the provisions contained in sections 212 to 215 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Act(d);"

At the time, the schemes were supplying multiple leaflets, so I sent them all, hence the "pages and pages" And as already said, they only recently made it clear on their websites what exactly needed to be supplied.

Why are you actually picking at that? I complied with the law.

5) Again, you said the scheme rules were simple, so my point about the legislation changing and being updated was to highlight how it wasn't all that simple, and how it's been given more clarity.

20
Guest Avatar
DAWOOD 17th May, 2015 @ 17:55

I moved into my house on april 2012 and had 6 month tenancy. That ended on 10/12. Now I stayed on and am still here as of may 2015 so that 3 years i've been here. I gave landlord £400 deposit. He never ever told me anything else about it after I payed? Does he owe me it? I'm still in his house and happy here but I wonder where my deposit is as I searched the sites you provided and can't find it??? Thanks Dawood

21
Guest Avatar
Frances 15th September, 2016 @ 15:48

I am trying to find information about the process of using the deposit to pay for the extensive damage done to my rental property by tenants who have moved out recently. I am so disappointed, they seemed like lovely people. Anyway, they have agreed responsibility verbally when we went through the inventory. Now I have dehumidifiers drying the place out before all the floors can be replaced (!) and I won't know the final cost until it is all done.
First time I have been in this situation, so what do I actually do? I only once had to withhold money and that time I passed an account to the tenant, we agreed it was reasonable and I paid them the balance, but that was before the scheme.
Do I get on with the repairs at my expense and then start a claim?
The deposit is with DPS and I did pass on the details & a leaflet. I can't find info on their website.

Thanks in advance.
Trying to be a decent landlord but am constantly astonished at the way some people treat property!

22
Guest Avatar
Kate 8th October, 2016 @ 15:02

Can you advise me please.
My beloved mother passed away in September 2011, I did not want to sell her home as I was still to emotionally connected to it.
I rented the property to people who my husband knew through work, who at the time were financially struggling so we let them rent for £100.00 a month below the rental value.
They signed a tenancy agreement and signed an inventory with me before they moved in.
I was (foolishly) guided by them as they had rented most of there working lives. I advised no animals as I have an allergy to cats.

Everything seemed fine for the first 2 years, I became aware that every time I wanted to check the house (minimised this for them to twice a year) it was inconvient on nights sleeping, had visitors etc.. I later quite by chance got a photo posted from a neighbour of them with a cat on the windowsill in the house. They denied having a cat but we saw more evidence later. I was so upset about this, and about the fact they had lied to me.

I noticed the gardens were no longer being cared for and that our tenants had become dismissive of us.

I did not know heat to do so after talking it through we put the rent up to the market value April 2016 hoping this would encourage them to leave. It worked they finally left June 2016.
It was a difficult parting as she refused to speak to us and stood out on the street whilst we tried to speak with her very charming and amenable partner....we later discovered he had not paid the final two months rent.
They have dunce argued we did not protect there deposit in a DPS we had never heard of this...however, we did not take a deposit when they initially moved in?
Can I take them to court, will the judge fine me for not having this DPS set up? Guidance much appreciated
Thank you.

23
Guest Avatar
Simon Pambin 9th October, 2016 @ 21:52

Hi Kate,

If you didn't take a deposit at any point then you can't be fined for not protecting it. (Apart from anything else, the maximum penalty is 3 x the deposit, and 3 x 0 = a big fat nothing!) The only way you could conceivably be on the hook would be if your erstwhile tenants were able to produce evidence that they'd paid you something that looked like a deposit.

As regards pursuing the two months' outstanding rent, you can do it but you may well decide it's not worth the heartache and it's better to write it off to experience. You've learned the hard way that letting a property you're emotionally attached to and letting to friends are both often paths to sorrow. However, if you think the sum involved is worth the hassle then by all means lob a Letter Before Action at them and see where it gets you.

24
Guest Avatar
EEB 21st November, 2016 @ 15:01

I had tenants move in in 2014 but did not secure their deposit through ignorance on my part, however when we renewed the contract this year I deposited it in a scheme within the 30 days and have issued the paperwork within 30 days of depositing it, the tenant is asking for compensation, I am wondering whether I should make an offer or put my case to a judge and let him decide?

Separate to this, he has threatened to burn down the house, theatened to withhold rent and trash the place, but I have no grounds to ask him to leave, any advice on this please?

25
Guest Avatar
Usi 6th December, 2016 @ 13:49

What if you were stupid enough to waive the deposits as a personal favour to the rouge tenant :-(..... I presume then we don't need to advice about the tenants deposit stuff

26
Guest Avatar
Bob 26th January, 2017 @ 22:55

I'm a landlord. I went through a letting agency to obtain a tenant. The tenant paid the agency a bond. Then the agency folded and went out of existence and surprise surprise we couldn't trace the bond. We took on the tenant with no bond and signed a contract to this effect. However we need the house back for personal reasons so issued a section 21. However the section 21 is invalid as the bond is not protected. Obviously the letting agent did not protect it. Now the tenant is saying that they are seeking compensation for 3 x the deposit. My argument is that in good faith we thought the letting agency would have done that. However they haven't, so my next action is to protect the bond even though we haven't received one so that the section 21 is valid. Is this too late to do, considering we have only just found out the deposit was not protected? Surely I can't be liable for 3 times the amount or will the court side on the tenant? Also if I protect the bond (which I never received) will the section 21 become valid?

27

Please leave a comment...

Nobody

Nobody

Landlord

Landlord

Tenant

Tenant

Agent

Agent

Legal

Legal

Buyer

Buyer

Developer

Developer

Enthusiast

Enthusiast