Section 21 notice problems

superdry

The deposit was paid prior to 2006 (when the deposit scheme came in.) If the law states a deposit is paid at the start of the tencancy and not each time when the tenancy was amended or updated (i.e. every 6 months)
Therefore you would not need a deposit scheme in place to raise a section 21?

superdry

superdry wrote: »

The deposit was paid prior to 2006 (when the deposit scheme came in.) If the law states a deposit is paid at the start of the tencancy and not each time when the tenancy was amended or updated (i.e. every 6 months)
Therefore you would not need a deposit scheme in place to raise a section 21?

Here's a copy of the law i'm relating to.
213 Requirements relating to tenancy deposits

(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.

tbs624

Regardless of any of the dates involved in this thread , Szlazo is yet another LL who seems not to know anything about tenancy deposit schemes. If you let property you simply *have* to keep up to date with current legislation, even if it does not apply to you at that particular time, it is likely to at some point in the not too distant future.

tbs624

superdry wrote: »

The deposit was paid prior to 2006 (when the deposit scheme came in.) If the law states a deposit is paid at the start of the tencancy and not each time when the tenancy was amended or updated (i.e. every 6 months)
Therefore you would not need a deposit scheme in place to raise a section 21?

The law still needs to be clarified on this one - there just haven't been enough cases through the courts yet.

My interpretation of the situation is this:

if a Fixed Term AST expires then it has ended, finished, it no longer exists (this parrot is deceased). When a new AST is signed for a further FT - this is a new contract, not an amendment or an update of the old one which ...erm...no longer exists so is not capable of being amended or updated.

The requirement to pay a deposit forms part of that new contract - it is merely for administrative purposes that it remains in the LL's possession, rather than being repaid to the tenant and received anew by the LL.

Intelligent LLs will err on the side of caution and register the deposit when/if there is a new AST granted.

IMO the law should simply have said that *all* tenancy deposits must be registered no matter when they were paid across to a LL.

In Szlazo's case the registration issue & the related validity or non validity of the S21 would probably have to be tested in court.

pinkshoes

Well, when it goes to court, I hope that the Szlazo the landlord wins, as although he should have put the deposit in the scheme (which he is now doing - better late than never!), I think the worse of the two crimes is the tenant not paying rent, and being so far in arrears.

I hope any judge will see that.

tbs624

I agree with you Pinkshoes that tenants should pay their rent. I have every sympathy with people who find themselves in a difficult financial situation through illness, job loss etc, and if that's the case prompt discussion with the LL should be a priority. On the other hand, there are "professional" tenants who *can* pay their rent but view paying it on time as unimportant just because they can get away with doing so for a while: when faced with eviction they then claim that their LL is treating them unfairly.

However, who knows how a judge will view things? The LL in the Stankova v Glassonbury case in Gloucester Co. Court apparently said that there were rent arrears (plus damage done to the property.) The judge still awarded the tenant 3x the deposit, although he did say that it went "against the grain" to do so.

The most straightforward thing is for *all* LLs to just get those tenancy deposits registered.

superdry

Looking at Szlazo's case if they now protected the deposit isn't there a danger that the s21 will not stand and therefore the whole process woudl have to start again?
If the standpoint is that the deposit did not need to be protected then the s21 will stand and happy days for the LL?

silvercar

superdry wrote: »

Looking at Szlazo's case if they now protected the deposit isn't there a danger that the s21 will not stand and therefore the whole process woudl have to start again?
If the standpoint is that the deposit did not need to be protected then the s21 will stand and happy days for the LL?

There have been cases where the judge has accepted that the deposit is protected by the court date so the S21 stands.

The point of the 3x deposit was to coerce landlords into protecting rather than give windfalls to tenants, these seems to be the interpretation of the badly written law.

There really needs to be a riuling on whether pre 2007 deposits need protecting rather than seeing what individual courts decide.

The problem with considering a deposit as being returned and re-made at the time of renewal is that no inventory/ checkouts are made at renewal so the deposit needs to be held against the original condition of the property.

moneysavinmonkey

silvercar wrote: »

There have been cases where the judge has accepted that the deposit is protected by the court date so the S21 stands.

The point of the 3x deposit was to coerce landlords into protecting rather than give windfalls to tenants, these seems to be the interpretation of the badly written law.

There really needs to be a riuling on whether pre 2007 deposits need protecting rather than seeing what individual courts decide.

The problem with considering a deposit as being returned and re-made at the time of renewal is that no inventory/ checkouts are made at renewal so the deposit needs to be held against the original condition of the property.

What is the case where the section 21 has been allowed when deposit was not protected. I've seen the 2x cases now where the 3x penalty has been waived for late protection but as I understand it the Section 21 notice can not be issued until the deposit is protected - so in this case it would have to be re-issued. I did not think there was any ambivalence on this - the law is clear:

from the housing act

Sanctions for non-compliance
(1)If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when—
(a)the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or
(b)the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit.
(2)If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with

(highlighting my own)


It says the notice can not be given until the deposit protection requirements are met - so a notice served prior to protection is not valid.

For all those jumping up and down about the naughtly non-paying tenants, bear in mind we only know one side of the story - it could be that rent is being withheld because of other disputes with the landlord such as repairs not being carried out etc. This is pure speculation of course but the OP has not presented themselves as a professional or law-abiding from the details they have given.

Silvercar - please can you provide a link to write up of the case you mention whereby a invalid section 21 is later is made to be valid by protection of the deposit after the date the notice is served. thanks.

moneysavinmonkey

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

Silvercar - please can you provide a link to write up of the case you mention whereby a invalid section 21 is later is made to be valid by protection of the deposit after the date the notice is served. thanks.

I'm still interested to hear about this case silvercar if you are about....