By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Landlord fined for keeping tenant’s deposit in a tin

A landlord has been ordered to pay his ex-tenant £1,500 after failing to protect her deposit with an approved scheme.

The Housing and Property Chamber First-tier tribunal for Scotland found that Mark Bradley of Gourock had not protected his tenant’s deposit for five and a half years, when he should have protected it within 30 working days of the start of the tenancy.

In April 2014, Bradley’s tenant paid £600 to Bradley’s mother in instalments for a “rental bond”. 


The money remained in the mother's house in a tin until September 2019 when the tenant asked for £150 back to pay for van removals at the end of the tenancy. The money was paid back by Bradley’s mother in cash.

When the tenant asked for the remainder of her money back, Bradley said he should keep it due to rent due to damage to the property. 

Bradley told the tribunal he still had the remaining £450 in cash as his mother had paid it back to him, but Bradley said he had never managed the property himself and that his mother dealt with it. 

He also said he was not aware of a landlord’s duties under deposit regulations and that the deposit had not been paid into a scheme initially due to it being paid to his family in instalments. His mother forgot to protect it after she was dealing with other family issues, apparently.

The tribunal found that a sum of two and a half times the amount of the deposit - £1,500 - was reasonable in the circumstances for Bradley to pay back to his tenant.

Eddie Hooker, chief executive of mydeposits, says: “Tenancy deposit legislation has been in place in Scotland since 2012 and before that in England and Wales since 2007. Each time we’ve launched a new scheme, in this case, Scotland, we have worked with the respective governments and stakeholders to communicate the rules to landlords, agents and tenants. Therefore, there is no excuse for any deposit to not be protected with an approved scheme.”

“On face value there are some amusing elements to this case, but it is in reality a serious issue. The tenant’s deposit could have easily been misplaced or misappropriated and they have also been denied access to an impartial resolution service at the end of the tenancy. These are exactly the reasons why the deposit schemes were set up.”

Bradley has said he is no longer letting out the property in question.

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • icon

    A 2.5 times penalty might be legal but is NOT reasonable! What loss did the tenant incur? It would appear that there was either damage or rent arrears which should be paid to the landlord.

    Compensation should be proportional to loss. This penalty, if levied at all, should at least have gone into the public purse.

    It also looks like one less property is now available for rent in an area of high demand.


    if you cant do the time don't do the crime


    Be fair... they did say, "On face value there are some amusing elements to this case." ?



    This was a breach of regulations, not a crime!

    Even if it had been a crime, it was victimless.

    Contrast the recent story of a thug getting a few hours community service for attacking a landlord.

  • Mark Wilson

    Over kill!

  • icon

    Completely agree with R Brown's comments. Regardless of your view on landlords/tenants this just demonstrates how the scales of justice are unbalanced. Most if not all this money should go to the public purse.

  • girish mehta

    Tenants pay in long term through higher rent. Recent laws will drive landlords out of market. As now to evict a tenant may take up to 2 years. Leaving rent arrears 20 to 30k. Outside London in
    London rent owed 50 to 60k.Even councils are having problems with rent arrears. With the effects of Covid and Brexit to have effect.This will drive investments in housing sector resulting in landlords pulling out , higher rent and fewer properties this will lead to
    More homeless people.
    Short term housing . Going to have major housing issues in future and politics of envy will lead to
    More hardship

  • icon

    Yet again this is a disproportionate law brought in by many of the arrogant, ignorant MPs, suppported by councillors and some assisting lobbying organisations, unemployable clerks in councils, because of some landlords rip-offs. This was and is never a fair law, it merely demonstrates "not fit for purposeness" of our lawmakers, those grossly overpaid, many ignorant, arrogant MPs.
    The deposit should be recorded/registered in the tenancy agreement and that should be adequate. All this is about how to rip off landlords and make tenants / lawyers rich by perverse means. the lawmakers go even further in holding the landlord responsible even if the managing agent has failed to protect the deposit. NICE ONE the moronic lawmaking deviants!!

    • 15 October 2020 11:07 AM

    Yep which is why I would NEVER allow a LA to have anything to do with the deposit and rent monies.

    It seems many LA don't like my terns if business so they have NEVER had any of it!!

  • icon

    Disproportionate penalty

  • James B

    Landlord bashing gone mad again

  • Kristjan Byfield

    Guys these regs are 13 years old. 13 years. Be compliant or get punished. Simples. Especially when compliance of these laws is free if you opt for a Custodial option. Penalties have to be harsh to be effective- however do agree that (providing tenant isn't out of pocket) any penalty should go to a housing initiative/charity.

  • icon

    Pay it back in instalments

  • icon

    Hi Mr.Byfield, ,
    firstly the age of the law is immaterial one should consider its merits!
    No it is not free to comply,to protect deposits, as there is a fee to pay in the protection option.
    Agree penalties have to be harsh to be effective, so how come the same principle does not apply to rent defaulting tenants and the so-called part-time Magistrates keep pushing the boundaries to defer penalising the tenants. Sorry but any fair minded son would unequivocally infer that this as mentioned earlier is LL BASHING AND MOLLY CUDDLING TENANTS!!

  • icon

    This gets a hearing. But poor devils with non paying tenants just have to keep waiting. What a fantastic fair society we are!!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up