I am getting a variety of inconsistent views on a deposit protection issue. My understanding is that ownership of a property and being a landlord are dissociated concepts:
i.e. that :
- a part-owner who is not a named landlord does not carry the obligations of a landlord simply by virtue of ownership.
- a named L does not need to be named owner,
and ONE landlord (not all landlords or all owners) has to protect the deposit on behalf of all landlords (not on behalf of all owners).
- a T who sublets with his own sub-AST might collect a separate deposit, and have to protect that separately - but is not an owner.
- I might have 100% beneficial interest in a property, and yet not be named at all on HMLR records. The 0% owner (and non L) who has 100% of the title is not the person obligated to protect deposit (and should not do so).
I would have thought that this should be bread and butter material (unless I am severely misled), but myDeposits call handlers do not seem to have a clear grasp of the position and are suggesting that I am doing something wrong.
In my case, one of my properties is owned only by myself, but my wife and I are named as joint landlords. Another property is owned by me, and my wife is named as the sole landlord (I pay all of the tax in both instances). My understanding is that this is a perfectly legitimate management approach and does not require any justification. One of the landlords (my wife) protects the deposit. I regard that as all fine.
I cannot find any reference on their website to the effect that a protecting landlord is synonymous with an owner (and has to be the HMLR title holder). I'm a little concerned that in the case of any deposit dispute I might encounter difficulty.
To reword all of the above as a simple question - why on earth is it not right for my wife, a clear landlord (but not owner), to protect a deposit.
Any clear views from anyone out there?
i.e. that :
- a part-owner who is not a named landlord does not carry the obligations of a landlord simply by virtue of ownership.
- a named L does not need to be named owner,
and ONE landlord (not all landlords or all owners) has to protect the deposit on behalf of all landlords (not on behalf of all owners).
- a T who sublets with his own sub-AST might collect a separate deposit, and have to protect that separately - but is not an owner.
- I might have 100% beneficial interest in a property, and yet not be named at all on HMLR records. The 0% owner (and non L) who has 100% of the title is not the person obligated to protect deposit (and should not do so).
I would have thought that this should be bread and butter material (unless I am severely misled), but myDeposits call handlers do not seem to have a clear grasp of the position and are suggesting that I am doing something wrong.
In my case, one of my properties is owned only by myself, but my wife and I are named as joint landlords. Another property is owned by me, and my wife is named as the sole landlord (I pay all of the tax in both instances). My understanding is that this is a perfectly legitimate management approach and does not require any justification. One of the landlords (my wife) protects the deposit. I regard that as all fine.
I cannot find any reference on their website to the effect that a protecting landlord is synonymous with an owner (and has to be the HMLR title holder). I'm a little concerned that in the case of any deposit dispute I might encounter difficulty.
To reword all of the above as a simple question - why on earth is it not right for my wife, a clear landlord (but not owner), to protect a deposit.
Any clear views from anyone out there?