Deposit Protection Obligations?

jammy26

I have had a bit of an odd letter from my landlord today via the letting agents, I am not sure what has prompted this and would like opinions on why.

Basic tenancy info

Sole tenancy started 1st October 2009 by partner 12 month AST
1st August 2010 new tenancy agreed when I moved in again 12 month AST then periodic from 31st July 2011
deposit was protected and I was given certificate etc.
Today new certificate arrived in joint names stating tenancy beginning on 1st August 2010 ending periodic. received by member 1st August 2010 registered 2nd October 2009.

Can anyone shed any light ans should I be worried?

I have asked my letting agent and they just said it was to comply with their deposit protection obligations.

G_M

jammy26 wrote: »

Basic tenancy info

Sole tenancy started 1st October 2009 by partner 12 month AST
1st August 2010 new tenancy agreed when I moved in again 12 month AST then periodic from 31st July 2011
deposit was protected and I was given certificate etc.
was this
a) within 30 days of 1/8/10 or
b) within 30 days of 1/8/11 (I assume that's what you meant, not 31st July) or
c) both the above
Today new certificate arrived in joint names stating tenancy beginning on 1st August 2010 ending periodic. received by member 1st August 2010 registered 2nd October 2009.

Can anyone shed any light ans should I be worried?

I have asked my letting agent and they just said it was to comply with their deposit protection obligations.

The agent is worried by the case of Superstrike Vs Rodrigues which made clear a periodic tenancy was a new tenancy, so deposits need new Prescribed Information to be issued (& possibly deposit re-registered - the law is unclear till there are further test cases).

Without that happening, a S21 Notice would be invalid. So it is possible they are considering issuing a S21, and preparing.

Or perhaps they are just trying to get up to date.

Either way, it is way beyond the 30 day deadline from the date the tenancy went periodic.

jammy26

The certificate was issued on 3rd August 2010 so within 30 days of 1st August 2010.

I have googled the superstrike case, can I check that this means that if they issue a s.21 for it to be valid they have to return our deposit? We are hoping to move in the summer so would like to delay them issuing notice for as long as possible so could this be a point of negotiation for us as I fear you may be right and we are about to be turfed out which would be very inconvenient!

G_M

Perhaps!

The Superstrike case is recent and there has been little time to establish what courts are now doing and how hey are interpreting/implementing the law. It probobly varies court by court to some extent too!

A court might decide that as the deposit is registered & PI was issued, they will allow the S21.

Or they might decide that as the PI was not re-issued when the tenancy went periodic, the S21 fails.

If you were a landlord, and wished to serve a S21 on a tenant, my advice would be "Return the deposit in full before issuing the S21, just to be sure".

But you as a tenant cannot guarantee that the S21 will fail if the deposit is not returned. Sorry - the law is not always clear-cut (otherwise there'd be no need for lawyers!)

jjlandlord

Whether the deposit must be 're-protected' depends on the deposit protection scheme. Some require it, some don't.
Indeed the law just says that the scheme's initial requirements must be complied with.