Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.
One of my landlord clients who has successfully defeated a nuisance claim brought by her tenants under the tenancy deposit protection legislation, has reported an interesting conversation she had with the Judge. Apparently the Judge said that the judiciary generally are unhappy with the legislation. The main reason being the automatic aspect, as they do not like having their decision power taken away from them.
That’s fair enough and I can understand their point of view. The trouble is, that if the Judges have a discretion whether to make the award or not, it makes it impossible for us advisors to give any meaningful advice. Inevitably different Judges will decide similar cases in different ways. This will result in injustice overall, as it is inequitable for a tenant’s right to an award to depend on the particular viewpoint of the Judge concerned (who may not be experienced in housing work). If the award is automatic then people know where they are.
It is important also to understand the reason for the legislation in the first place. It is to force landlords (many of whom are still in denial) to use the tenancy deposit protection scheme. A scheme set up to protect tenants from the injustice of landlords (not all of them by any means but a fair number) effectively stealing tenants money by unreasonably refusing to return deposits.
If landlords see a window of opportunity many of them will continue to refuse to protect deposits, rendering the new scheme useless. It will of course mostly be the ‘bad landlords’ who will do this – ‘good landlords’ are on the whole already compliant.
So automatic penalties are the best way of preventing avoidance. It is harsh justice on those who offend through ignorance, however this is not the only field where ignorance of the law is no defence – and there are many sources of free help and information. This legislation has been in force for over a year now - there is really no excuse for non compliance any more.
Incidentially, my client had protected her deposit and had the paperwork to prove it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health informationA physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 pat...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has voted unanimously to introduce amendments designed to strengthen the regulatory framework govern...
-
USA: Restoring American Financial Stability - discussion draft published by Senate Banking CommitteeThe United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs has published a discussion draft titled Restoring American Financ...
-
In case you were wondering, you really shouldn't expect that anything you post on your MySpace page will be kept private. If you are in ...
-
According to an article in USA Today, Facebook is following in the footsteps of Google and others by using targeted ads. I'm not at all ...
-
I was interviewed some time ago for a Globe & Mail article on workplace surveillance, which appeared yesterday. The piece discusses keys...
-
Like many people I suspect, I was concerned to read the recent BBC report about glass ceilings which, the report said, means that "to...
-
Earlier this year, in Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 261 , the Court of Appeal declined to follow the position, adopted in Re Guidezone [2...
-
In Gregson v HAE Trustees Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1006 (Ch) a so-called "dog-leg" claim was brought against the directors of a ...
Comments
Post a comment on: Musings on the tenancy deposit protection scheme