Deposit Protection

Jack_flash_2

My partner moved into our current flat 14 years ago. Obviously the deposit didn't need to be protected then because it was pre 2007 when the scheme came in.

However, when I moved in we signed a new agreement with my name on it. In the new agreement it has 'deposit £800 (paid 1999)'
Should the deposit be protected in a scheme or not?

I can't seem to find a definitive answer but my understanding is that even though the deposit was paid in 1999 it should be protected because we signed a new tenancy agreement after 2007.

Jack_flash_2

Can anyone help me out?

RAS

when did you move in?

Jack_flash_2

I moved in about 3 years ago.

moromir

If any new fixed term AST was signed after 2007 or the tenancy lapsed on to an SPT from a fixed term AST after 2007 then the deposit should have been placed in a protected scheme and you issued with the prescribed information.

lighting_up_the_chalice

moromir wrote: »

If any new [STRIKE]fixed term[/STRIKE] AST was signed after 6th April 2007 or the tenancy lapsed on to an SPT from a fixed term AST after 6th April 2007 then the deposit should have been placed in a protected scheme and you issued with the prescribed information.

Just a bit of clarification.

jjlandlord

Even simpler

moromir wrote: »

If any new [STRIKE]fixed term[/STRIKE] AST was [STRIKE]signed[/STRIKE] created after 6th April 2007 [STRIKE]or the tenancy lapsed on to an SPT from a fixed term AST after 2007[/STRIKE] then the deposit should have been placed in a protected scheme and you issued with the prescribed information.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

Even simpler

I appreciate the point being made, but that issue is still slightly unclear. The only case tested in the higher courts has been a FT entered into prior to April 2007 which lapsed into a SPT after April 2007. I agree that current best advice would appear to be to re-protect any deposit if/when a FT tenancy becomes a SPT, but that hasn't yet been clarified or tested.

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I appreciate the point being made, but that issue is still slightly unclear. The only case tested in the higher courts has been a FT entered into prior to April 2007 which lapsed into a SPT after April 2007. I agree that current best advice would appear to be to re-protect any deposit if/when a FT tenancy becomes a SPT, but that hasn't yet been clarified or tested.

It is not unclear: The potential scenario discussed here, and the one I commented on is exactly the one tested in the higher courts.

More generally, people fail to grasp tat "re-protection" is up to the scheme.
It is clear and tested that any new AST (the law does not differentiate between SPT, fixed term AST, etc. they are all ASTs) triggers having to comply with the scheme's initial requirements (that's what "protecting" means in law) within 30 days. It is up to the scheme to decide whether an action, or what action, is necessary.
PI are different because specifically dealt with in statute.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

It is not unclear: The potential scenario discussed here, and the one I commented on is exactly the one tested in the higher courts.

More generally, people fail to grasp tat "re-protection" is up to the scheme.
It is clear and tested that any new AST (the law does not differentiate between SPT, fixed term AST, etc. they are all ASTs) triggers having to comply with the scheme's initial requirements (that's what "protecting" means in law) within 30 days. It is up to the scheme to decide whether an action, or what action, is necessary.
PI are different because specifically dealt with in statute.

http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/superstrike-vs-rodrigues-guidance-on-implications.pdf

"The decision has undoubtedly caused some confusion about the legal position on some aspects of deposit protection. Until there are further cases decided in the higher Courts or a change in the law, there will continue to be some uncertainty about the legal position."

"The decision in Superstrike confirms that a statutory periodic tenancy is a new tenancy. This begs the question whether the deposit that has already been protected needs to be re-protected and PI re-served. It should be stressed that these issues were not directly addressed in Superstrike but we would suggest that this could be an argument made for a tenant in any future case."

Still, I'm sure you know best.

G_M

Jack_flash wrote: »

I can't seem to find a definitive answer but my understanding is that even though the deposit was paid in 1999 it should be protected because we signed a new tenancy agreement after 2007.

The 1999 payment date is irrelevant.

When you signed a new tenancy (after 1997) in theory the deposit was returned (since the teancy for which it was taken had ended) and a new deposit was taken (for the new tenancy.)

In practice this movement of actual cash may have been 'virtual', but legally it was a new deposit, requiring re-registration and new Prescribed Information.