court action for not providing a DPC?

[c_merengo]

Hello folks,

 

I understand that landlords are obliged not only to register a tenancy deposit with one of the 3 authorised schemes, but also to provide a deposit protection certificate or equivalent information. Details of that are in the appropriate sticky (I can't post links yet).

 

My question is a more practical one: are there any cases of court action against a landlord who *has* protected the deposit but has *not* provided the appropriate documentation, even by the end of the tenancy? Or similar situations?

 

What I'm really wondering is how on earth it would be practical to *prove* that such documentation has not been received? Surely the landlord would simply claim it had been provided, and it would be your word against theirs?

 

Or is the onus on them to prove that they did provide the documentation? If so, can one demand such proof in advance of court action to guard against the nasty surprise of finding out they *did* provide the docs after all?

 

Thanks for any help!

[Pinnel]

The action you speak of is a Housing Act 2004 S214 (as amended) action for non-protection. If satisfied that the protection or information requirements were inadequately discharged, the court will order your deposit protected or repaid as well as an award of 1 to 3 times the deposits value. You should be aware that this is out of bounds for the small claims court and must be submitted to the county court multi track. The onus is on the landlord to prove that the information was provided, it may be included in your tenancy agreement. TDS, MyDeposits and DPS all provide a certificate, but it is uncertain at this time whether giving this certificate to the tenant is actually part of the information requirements (Stands to reason that they should provide proof, but so far not been tested by courts). There`s a range of other information that the landlord/agent must supply, such as procedures for disputing, procedures for uncontactable landlord/tenant and contact details of LL, tenant and scheme. Failure of complying with these formalities have attracted the full award (Ayannuga v Swindells).

[Lea_HTH]

Failure of complying with these formalities have attracted the full award (Ayannuga v Swindells).

 

The above case was decided under the 2004 Act and not the 2011 Act, therefore an award of 3x was the only sanction available. There is nothing to suggest the same failure to comply would attract a 3x award under LA2011. I think people are confused about the above case because the judgment was handed down after the change in law, but the law applicable to the case was prior to that...

[mariner51]

Also it should cost you £1K + in up front Court costs to bring an action for non-protection and expose you to full defence costs if you lose.

[Steve__M]

Housing Act 2004, Section 213(5) says "A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—

(a)the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,

(b)compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and

©the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,

as may be prescribed."

 

I guess you would have to be specific as to which bit of information "prescribed" by the scheme that has not been given to you. There is no "certificate" as such even though some schemes provide template documents that contain all the relevant information in one place and other schemes require the LL to insert certain terms into the contract.