Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
"We did protect it — just a bit late"
high likelihoodThe landlord protects the deposit after the 30 days have run, often the week they receive your letter, and says the breach is cured and nothing is owed.
What answers it
Section 214(1) is engaged where the initial requirements of an authorised scheme were not complied with within the period mentioned in s. 213(3). Protecting late does not undo that, and s. 214(4) still requires the court to order a payment of between one and three times the deposit. Late compliance goes to the amount within that range, not to whether anything is payable at all.
Housing Act 2004, s. 214(4) — s. 214(1)–(4)
"You have moved out, so it is too late"
high likelihoodThe landlord or agent asserts that the s. 214 route closed when the tenancy ended.
What answers it
Section 214 expressly contemplates an application after the tenancy has ended — s. 214(1A) and (2A) deal with exactly that case, and the court may then order repayment of the deposit rather than payment into a scheme. The only clock that matters is the six-year limitation period.
Housing Act 2004, s. 214(4) — s. 214(1)–(4)
"The money was in a scheme, so we complied"
high likelihoodThe landlord points to a scheme certificate and treats the prescribed information as a formality.
What answers it
Protection and prescribed information are two separate initial requirements, in s. 213(3) and s. 213(6) respectively. Failing to serve the prescribed information within 30 days engages s. 214 in its own right, even where the money itself was protected on day one. Ask them to produce the dated prescribed-information certificate signed by the landlord.
Housing Act 2004, s. 213 — s. 213(3), (5), (6)
"The property needed cleaning and redecorating"
high likelihoodThe landlord charges for cleaning, carpet wear, scuffed paint or tired fittings and treats the deposit as a refurbishment fund.
What answers it
Fair wear and tear from ordinary use is not a recoverable loss in any of the regimes this product covers — a deduction must reflect damage or a breach beyond ordinary use, must be evidenced, and must be reduced for the age and remaining life of the item. Ask for the invoice, the check-in and check-out evidence, and the calculation.
"Prove you did not cause it"
high likelihoodThe landlord asserts damage and expects the tenant to disprove it, often without a check-in inventory.
What answers it
It is the party seeking to keep the money who must justify keeping it. Where there is no dated check-in record to compare against, an adjudicator has nothing to measure the alleged damage from, and the deduction generally fails on that ground alone.