We did a lot of publicity here on the Landlord Law blog in the lead up to April when the new tenancy deposit regulations came in.
But sadly many landlords (not being Landlord Law Blog readers) appear to be putting themselves at risk by failing to follow the rules.
A loyal reader tells me he has seen six cases recently where landlords have either not protected the deposit at all, or have just protected and not served the all important notice with the prescribed information.
And we suspect that there are many, many more.
If you are a landlord and have only just found this blog –
Have you protected your deposits?
The ONLY deposits which do not require deposit protection are:
Deposits taken before 7 April 2007, where you have not given the tenant a new tenancy agreement since (ie where the tenancy is rolling on, under a periodic tenancy), or
Deposits taken for lets which are not assured shorthold tenancies. For example where the tenants are a limited company, or where you are a resident landlord.
All other deposits MUST be protected with a government authorised tenancy deposit scheme. These are:
So where do you get the prescribed information forms?
- If you use the DPS you will find it in the documents section of their website.
- If you use TDS /DepositGuard scheme you will be given one to use as part of the process
- If you use My Deposits they tell you what to do on their website (but don’t give you a form)
- Landlord Law members will find a form they can use on the site and
- You can buy a suitable form from Lawpack
Am I correct in thinking that as this legislative change is from the Localism Bill that it does not apply to Wales?
You say
“You will still be vulnerable to a claim by the tenants for the penalty payment awarded by courts when landlords have failed to comply with the regulations.
But if you protect as soon as you become aware of the problem, the penalty will be less than if you continue to ignore your obligations.”
But what if a Landlord has only protected a deposit after receiving a first notice of possible legal action from the tenant (in this case one who had left the property over a month ago)? Surely this implies they never intended to do it until necessary, much like the previous loop holes aloud them to. Would that not make them appear more guilty of disregarding this law?
Probably. The level of the fine they received would depend on the Judge’s view of their conduct.