Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
porca misèria

R4 Moneybox On Tds

Recommended Posts

Just turned the wireless on, and they're discussing it. Seems they've found some holes in it that are not well-known to HPC: e.g. landlord protects it with an insurance-based scheme then doesn't pay the premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just turned the wireless on, and they're discussing it. Seems they've found some holes in it that are not well-known to HPC: e.g. landlord protects it with an insurance-based scheme then doesn't pay the premium.

Missed the programme on Saturday, but it's repeated on Sunday at 9pm, so I'll listen this evening..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking for this program on the "Listen again" facility (starts at around 0:06:23

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014f1mq

Noticed a page for tenants comments here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/9593195.stm

Brief Précis

Tenants paid £1900 as a deposit and they were told protected by one of the schemes. Moved out and asked for a certificate. None provided. They discovered that it had never been protected by a scheme. Once tenancy has ended there is no penalty for the LL not protecting the deposit.

Interview with Shelter. Common problem. There are 2 insurance schemes but sometimes the LL hasn't paid the premium when the tenancy is renewed.

Awful interview with someone who represents the LL trying to blame it on tenants not asking for the certificate.

Small claims court mentioned.

Amendment to the Locialism Bill will change from 14 - 30 days the LL's time to protects the deposit, and close the loophole of the penalty so LL's after tenancy ended.. Sliding scheme of charges to LL.

Continuing problems over pre-2007 deposits, LL's changing during a tenancy.

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking for this program on the "Listen again" facility (starts at around 0:06:23

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014f1mq

Noticed a page for tenants comments here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/9593195.stm

Brief Précis

Tenants paid £1900 as a deposit and they were told protected by one of the schemes. Moved out and asked for a certificate. None provided. They discovered that it had never been protected by a scheme. Once tenancy has ended there is no penalty for the LL not protecting the deposit.

Interview with Shelter. Common problem. There are 2 insurance schemes but sometimes the LL hasn't paid the premium when the tenancy is renewed.

Awful interview with someone who represents the LL trying to blame it on tenants not asking for the certificate.

Well of course the lack of the penalty is the tenant's fault for not chasing this up whilst they were still tenants. They had the opportunity to do so.

This is hardly a loophole that needs fixing.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this OP

Can anyone tell me - if the tenant chases it up during the tenancy, ie asking "Is my deposit protected, and can I have the certificate or reference number for the scheme?", how long does the agent or landlord have to comply in law with that request to provide info to the tenant?

Who should the tenant report a suspected unprotected deposit to?

Can landlords then get away with suddenly protecting the deposit only once they find out the tenant has reported them, thus avoiding the penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi inflating,

The only one I remember them covering was your third question

Can landlords then get away with suddenly protecting the deposit only once they find out the tenant has reported them, thus avoiding the penalty?

and the answer is currently yes according to that program (and if the tenancy has ended the LL isn't liable for the penalty)

=======

BTW as a tenant I've had problems in the past finding out who my LL actually is - let alone what is happening with my deposit.

This is why I don't feel that tenants should be blamed for not following this up. Although there may be laws on matters it's the enforcement of them that is important.

I've had LL's who have tried to hide away behind agents before and attempts to find them can result in evictions and nasty tactics - happened to me,

It's the responsibility of the LL to protect the deposit. He's the one who wants it after all.

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this OP

Can anyone tell me - if the tenant chases it up during the tenancy, ie asking "Is my deposit protected, and can I have the certificate or reference number for the scheme?", how long does the agent or landlord have to comply in law with that request to provide info to the tenant?

Who should the tenant report a suspected unprotected deposit to?

Can landlords then get away with suddenly protecting the deposit only once they find out the tenant has reported them, thus avoiding the penalty?

Well yes, but I don't really understand (ignoring the edge case where he tenancy has ended) why anyone would want it to be different.

The reason for T complaining about a non protected deposit is so that he ends up with a potected deposit, not so that he can extract a penalty. The penalty is there so that a LL has an incentive not to ignore T's complaint when it is made.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flopsy, Tim - many thanks

A landlord who has failed to protect the deposit should not have the opportunity to protect it only once the tenant has enquired, he/she should immediately be liable for the penalty if he/she has not protected it within the period allowed

The landlord/agent should have a fixed time period to reply to the tenant if they don't already regarding a deposit protection enquiry and no opportunity to evade penalties if they have not already protected it

The tenant should have some body to report a non protected tenanct to, surely?!

All this is obvious stuff, why on earth it is not implemented properly as seems to be the case I don't know - perhaps it is, but sounds very vague and like it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flopsy, Tim - many thanks

A landlord who has failed to protect the deposit should not have the opportunity to protect it only once the tenant has enquired, he/she should immediately be liable for the penalty if he/she has not protected it within the period allowed

The landlord/agent should have a fixed time period to reply to the tenant if they don't already regarding a deposit protection enquiry and no opportunity to evade penalties if they have not already protected it

The tenant should have some body to report a non protected tenanct to, surely?!

All this is obvious stuff, why on earth it is not implemented properly as seems to be the case I don't know - perhaps it is, but sounds very vague and like it isn't

It's as it is because, when they drafed the legislation they missed a word out and the courts have interpreted the law differently to what most people think it was meant to mean.

But we'll have to agree to differ on whether there is a benefit to the penalty applying instantly upon a complaint.

You'll note that the current government see it my way as they are going to change the law to make the penalty discressionary, whilst at he same time closing the loop-hole of being able to register the deposit after the tenancy has ended.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My LL had only protected the deposit after I asked for the deposit ID number so I could go to arbitration!

which is surely the result that you wanted

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not really because I am disuputing his claims and he thought I would just give in - now he knows I'm serious he wants to cover his back.. but how can he put a deposit into a protection scheme weeks after the tenancy has ended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is surely the result that you wanted

tim

Yes, tenants want their deposits protected, but they also want the process of getting that protection not to require them to chase the landlord with extensive correspondence, open disputes via third parties, go to court etc. What's the compensation for tenants who are put through this kind of hassle? As long as the landlord protects the deposit before the court date, there isn't any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is surely the result that you wanted

tim

nonsense,

I want my deposit protected the day i give it to the landlord.

It is in their trust, and if they misuse that trust, i expect A, full recompense, and B, the full force of law on the landlord.

Your argument is that if no-one catches the thief, he is not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.