A Flaw in the Argument?

I have just been reading an article on deposit schemes legislation (which we helped produce) and despite almost three years of reading sections 212 to 215 Housing Act 2004, I think I may have just found a flaw in the argument that helps landlords about late protection which I had not (and many other practitioners had not) considered.

We have always held the view that if a landlord protects a deposit and gives the prescribed information, or repays the full deposit back prior to any hearing regarding the matter albeit after 14 days, the landlord will escape penalty (see Draycott v Hannells and Harvey v Bamforth for example).

However, I was just reading again the case Seghier v Rollings Bow County Court 6 March 2009 and it dawned on me is this principle of avoiding compensation correct?

The reason ...Please login (via sidebar) or Register to read the rest of this content.

1. 

   David Boyle says:

   20/07/2010 at 8:27 am

   So if you were facing a potential claim would it matter if the deposit was then protected in any of the other schemes or does it have to be with the DPS.

   reply
   • 

     admin says:

     20/07/2010 at 8:41 am

     It really must be in the DPS and no other scheme. Draycott established that the 14 day rule does not apply to DPS. However, there is no such case for other schemes. In addition, the other two schemes have different wording which appear to try and avoid Draycott by specifically saying their initial requirements require the deposit be protected within 14 days and are therefore different wording to the DPS. (MyDeposits rules suggest they might accept late protection with consent and an additional fee being paid and other conditions.)

     reply