Homeless family lived in Bristol hotel for three years

It said the family had found private lets but lost the properties because the council took too long to consider their requests help to pay the deposit.

What happened to the deposit they got back from the property they left?

It's ring fenced and you only get it back after inspections and possible deductions. You never get it back before moving into another place, if at all.

Maybe some nasty landlord found loads of excuses to keep it and it was given before the Tenancy deposit scheme existed.
Maybe they had no income for some reason and needed to eat
Maybe there was no deposit
Maybe they lost jobs or had an illness.

Let's not imagine that though, eh?
Let's just assume they wanted to ponce off the state.

It must be fantastic to be a family of 5 living in a hotel room.

You never get it back before moving into another place, if at all.

That's wrong about deposits saddo.

STUDYFORM's first line is wrong as well.

If they'd been Somalian they'd have got one quick regardless, very unfair these days.

You can't just say it's wrong Dr. I personally know people who have to move before getting it back. Are you saying everyone gets it back on the morning they move home?

They get it back once both parties have agreed the settlement - usually it takes a week or so AFTER leaving the property. Which is usually the day people move into another one.
For which deposits would need to be paid BEFORE moving in.

I moved house about a month ago - and had this very situation. Saddo is absolutely correct.
Although he isn't right about the special rules for Somalians.

The tenancy deposit scheme started in 2007.
It is possible that these people moved into their previous place before that.

Crippen, wrong (again) this time on the only subject you should know anything about!
This is where you don't return to the thread usually.

In fact if there is dispute between tenant and landlord upon exiting a property it can take months to get the money back.

You never get it back before moving into another place, if at all.

I even put it in bold so even people like SYUDYFORM couldn't get it wrong.

Yet he did.

The landlord you're leaving has no interest in whether you've moved into another property before he okays the deposit for release.

Saddo  hits nail on the Head ,the Sir Name Burn was probably overlooked by officials .

I should add to my last post; and neither does the deposit protection people where the deposit has been kept.

So you think the landlord ok's the deposit for release before a tenant vacates a property?
Not a chance.

No, that's a figment of your imagination STUDY.

most tenants move from one place to another on the same day - they need a deposit to move in before they actually move in.
That deposit is often about the same amount as that from the place they leave...

Are you saying, Crippen, that the landlord of the place to be vacated will agree with the holder of the deposit to release it, BEFORE they vacate?

Is that what you're saying?

I asked a similar question, no chance of getting it back in time to give it to new landlord.

wrong sort to get a place - only for the marauders from the continent allowed three bed houses

That's correct saddo.

Unless you have a very obliging landlord.
There's nothing to say he can't pay you before you vacate.

Not pay you, should be, okay the release of funds from the deposit protection people.

In your world of the sleazy landlord, the people leaving a property don't matter - it doesn't occur to you that they move on the same day.
There is no way you won't hold the deposit back (whether you have it or not) before checking the property.
It just doesn't matter or occur to you that tenants might well be moving the same day.

There's nothing to say it, no. But it doesn't happen, does it?

Come on.... answer the q, crippen.
Are you saying, Crippen, that the landlord of the place to be vacated will agree with the holder of the deposit to release it, BEFORE they vacate?
Not, "are they allowed to" but "Do they?"

Obfuscation for the sake of it there Dr. The problem exists as described, pointless trying to mislead.

can't have this type of british getting housed ahead of more deserving jobseekers from outside

you should not get the deposit until it has been ok by the landlord
whats the problem?

see how the council used successful tactics against this british family for three years

but now have been found out

Because the new landlord wants his deposit before you move in. A simple bridging loan system is required.

ah ok moisok, perhaps it wasn't the landlords fault

thanks saddo, not the landlords fault then

No one's fault, there is a gap. Most poor folk don't have a spare monkey-or more- laid around.

there are no poor people in britain

There are millions who could't come up with a monkey tomorrow.

that's true, that doesn't mean they are poor

it simply means they have spent it

9 grand in compensation

having said that it is a terrible way for a family to live, perhaps a month or two should be enough time to sort out these things

Come across on the ferry and you won't have problems with housing

Yes wrong Name on form , Name change to Abdul Burns ,Job done .

Obfuscation for the sake of it there Dr. The problem exists as described, pointless trying to mislead.

What problem are you referring to saddo?

You get your deposit back at the end of your contract, and when the landlord has indicated to the deposit protection people that he is happy to let them go ahead and pay back the deposit.

What is there to misunderstand?

FFS!!!!!!!!
No answer by crippen. As always.

last try:

Are you saying, Crippen, that the landlord of the place to be vacated will agree with the holder of the deposit to release it, BEFORE they vacate?
Is that what you're saying?

lfc saying there are no poor people in Britain.


I was doing Statler and Waldorf a disservice comparing you two to them.

Your 14.03 post implied that the same money can be used for both deposits. It cannot, as you know. Pretending you don't understand the problem does not mean there is no problem.

I think we need to determine the situation with refunds etc. If a lodger then some landlords forego the final month's rent (I did with mine). If it's a whole home then I agree that is very unusual for deposits to be given prior to checking the property after the tenant leaves.

P.S I have scan-read this thread so may have a few crossed wires here

What saddo and I have clearly said is that there is need to pay a deposit BEFORE moving in to a new place.

And there is no return of deposit until moving OUT of the last place. IS THERE?

This means that there is quite often a shortfall for the tenant between the 2 things happening.

There is no misunderstanding, crippen. You're just being yourself.

Here it is again:

There's nothing to say they can't pay you before you vacate.

You'll go a long way before you'll find one that would, but there's nothing to prevent it should they wish.
If both parties sign the papers the deposit can be released back to the tenant at any time.

Oh FFS
Anything but concede the point, isn't it?

Saddo, quite correctly, said that tenants need to have a deposit to move in to a property.
That deposit is usually the amount held on the previous property. Commonly in the area of £1500-£2000 (6 weeks advance rent).

Therefore they often (just about always) don't get the money they need to use as a deposit until AFTER they've moved, do they?

Not "there's nothing to say they can't" bullplop - Do you allow the return of deposit before a property is vacated?
I'll bet it virtually never happens.
I'll also wager

But you'll rather continue arguing and trying to twist words.
There's nothing to say they can't pay you before you vacate. IS as saddo said, obfuscation.

*I'll also wager you won't allow a tenant without a deposit, or wait for them to get there previous deposit back first.

So - just to ram the point home.
This:
Dr Crippen  • April 12, 2018 2:36 PM BST 

You never get it back before moving into another place, if at all.
That's wrong about deposits saddo.
STUDYFORM's first line is wrong as well.

Both saddo and I were right.

They haven't been thinking for themselves, or maybe they have
£600 a week..where are all these poor people in Britain that study claims exist?
I don't know

You never get it back before moving into another place, if at all.

That's not true, it's got nothing to do with moving into another property.

It's all to do with moving out of the one you are leaving.


What saddo should have written was; you never get it back before you vacate the property that the deposit is held against.

When dealing with rules and regulations you have to be precise.

It can if the landlord agrees to it saddo.

If they don't ask they don't get.

Maybe some nasty landlord found loads of excuses to keep it and it was given before the Tenancy deposit scheme existed.

That's the line from STUDY I referred to that's obviously wrong.

The family in question have only been homeless for three years. Their deposit would have been protected.

SF you need to calm down. Think of your blood pressure.
BTW not all tenants are perfect as I found to my cost.

Call me old fashioned but couldn't the fella get employment and provide for his family?

(terribly sexist I know...)

Working and White ? Looking for a council House

take the can back to the offy akabula, they will change them

Very good Donny.

I'm just fed up with the semantics from crippen.

They may well have been homeless for 3 years, but they may have moved IN to their previous home before 2007. We don't know.
So my point is valid.

What saddo said and OBVIOUSLY meant and was correct about, was that people moving into a new house need to find the deposit.
If they are moving FROM a house, the amount of money held is usually about the same, but they cannot get that money until way after they need it.

It happens all the time. You know it does, you know what we both meant, and you chose to argue about semantics.

STUDYFORM, if we all commented on what we think people meant, instead of commenting on what they actually wrote, then we'd be in the same boat as you. 
That means getting things wrong time after time and putting words into other people's mouths which you do all the time.

cnt

I seem to Remember The Likes of Choudary and that Bloke with Hook hands ,Their families lived in several Council houses ?

Aye, well it's probably racist these days not to house and feed terrorist types.

The tenant deposit legislation works specifically in favour of the tenant.
A tenant cannot break criminal law in any way with regard to deposits or the tenancy that they apply to.

There's nothing in it at all for the landlord, except potential criminal prosecution for infringement of the petty rules and regulations.
Even recouping losses from a deposit where a tenant has damaged property is a complicated process requiring legal involvement.

A very lopsided situation indeed, yet tenants with ''the world owes me a living attitude'' living off the backs of others, will continue to shout that they are hard done by.
When in reality, they simply don't know how lucky they are.