Instead they (a large landlord agency) tried to justify the withholding of the deposit with dubious inventory statements that has no valid VAT or registration numbers.

In this case the tenant's were two international students who did not know until after this dilemma that their deposit had to be protected. They had only realised this after doing research on legal measures to get back their deposit.

Now this went to court and the judge ruled in favour of the landlord because they "had not had the opportunity to make it right." Meaning the landlord was not given the 14 day opportunity to protect the deposit.

The landlord's defense was that they had not known about the deposit protection scheme, even though earlier admitting they were a large letting agency with many buildings.

The tenant's are seeking to appeal this judgment as it is, I think, unjust and unfair to allow that defense. The landlord had clearly manipulated the situation to their benefit.

If there is a situation where one party says one thing and the other party says another, then the Judge has to do what his job says and 'judge' which one is telling the truth. They are pretty experienced at this sort of thing and usually get it right. But not always.

So it is best to get some proof of service if only to make it easier for the Judge to believe you.

As regards the working out of the tenancy deposit regulations, since I first wrote this post in January 2009 I have written up and commented on many more cases. You can find them all via the tenancy deposit tag or by clicking here.

It would be interesting to hear a view on the tale told in this post.

Draconian is one word for it – harsh is another but what you have to realise is there are clever stages to it. The only thing I can see that the draughtsman did not properly allow for is this – how does one prove, in a court of law, exactly what prescribed information was actually given to the tenant unless CCTV cameras film the whole event. Sending by signed for mail only proves a document was sent, not its contents, hand delivering makes no difference….until the government make it a requirement for tenants to acknowledge receipt the legislation can be cleverly manipulated by a tenant who want to create a situation where their landlord is 'in breach' of some aspect of the initial requirements or prescribed info thus throwing doubt on a well-intended action. So my advice to landlords is to be ABSOLUTELY PARANOID. Photograph the contents of your envelope, include a copy of the photo in what you send and hand deliver and request an itemised written receipt. Even if you have not met the 14 day initial requirement, cover your tracks and be vigilant.

I know because I just won a case against tenants who set a sophisticated and unbelievable trap having realised for a variety of reasons that the deposit was deposited late…thing was we realsied too it had been mistakenly overlooked, nothing sinister – why would you want to be in breach of this little number-
they took action AFTER it was deposited and papers issued which they claimed they did not 'receive'. Our papertrail was tighter and the Judge sensible enough to see the spirit of the law was adhered to. We were many miles away from a penalty and the legislation wording, once you have your head round it, explains just that.
Some accountability from the tenant is what is needed. It is wrong wrong wrong to assume all landlords are bad and all tenants good.