new information on superstrike case

when_will_it_end

http://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/news_features/Government-moves-to-reassure-landlords-over-Superstrike?tickertape=yes


Just read this an had a few questions, does it mean then if passed, which it seems it will be, then LL just have to protect any deposit pre April 2007 where the tenancy agreement became periodic after the date?

Also, does this still mean that until this happens any s21 served is invalid without the PI.

Sorry if the questions seem silly I just need to know I'm reading correctly.

Thanks

G_M

It is common sense (with one possible exception). It means that LLs will have to register deposits which become periodic (SPTs) following a fixed term only once.

Tenancies post 2007: LL registers deposit initially + issies PI, but does not need to do so again if tenancy becomes periodic. Sensible.

Tenancies pre 2007 (where deposit was not and does not need to be registered): deposit must be registered (once) if/when the tency becomes periodic after 2007. Sensible.

For all tenancies that have ceased or where a deposit is no longer held, landlords will be deemed to have complied.

This I find strange. Does it mean that the current position whereby a tenant can sue for the non-registration penalty even after the tenancy has ended, is being changed? If so, I'm amazed.

Or is it perhaps poor reporting/wording by 'Landlord Today'?

We'll wait and see.

jjlandlord

It's not common sense... The law was clear on statutory periodic ASTs, though perhaps not that clear on what 'receiving a deposit' meant, but deposit schemes did not read it, so now they change the law to cover everyone

It means that (virtually all) LLs will have to register deposits (for ASTs), but only once.

Not really. It means that a statutory periodic AST will be a special case, which will not require re-protecting. All other cases will require re-protecting.
Specifically, when the tenancy is 'renewed' re-protection (if required by scheme) and giving the PI will be required.

This I find strange. Does it mean that the current position whereby a tenant can sue for the non-registration penalty even after the tenancy has ended, is being changed? If so, I'm amazed.

It's not changed in general. This is just to prevent actions in the specific case of lack of re-protection/PI given when a statutory periodic AST was created.

The text of the actual amendment:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0191/amend/pbc1911405a.2233-2234.html

I've found that it's always best to read the actual law rather than relying on random commentators

G_M

jjlandlord wrote: »

The text of the actual amendment:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0191/amend/pbc1911405a.2233-2234.html

I've found that it's always best to read the actual law rather than relying on random commentators

Thanks for the link.

Jabberwk

I'm a bit confused over whether my deposit is being properly protected. The advice I've received previously from both Shelter and the deposit protection scheme has carefully used the word 'may' ("your deposit may not have been properly protected") when considering the results of the superstrike case. Not sure if this new amendment would change things or not.

Our situation is that, although the people in the property have remained the same, we have signed a new fixed term tenancy agreement each year (our letting agents will not allow us to move onto a rolling contract, but insisted we either sign a new contract or they serve a section 21 notice). As it happens, in both the last tenancy agreement and the one we are about to sign, some clauses in the contract have been amended, but even if this had not been the case we still would have had to sign a new contract each year.

Our deposit was protected at the start of the first tenancy agreement and when I log into the deposit protection service the information listed against it is that the tenancy is for 12 months from the date of that initial agreement. Nothing has been done in relation to the deposit when the new contracts have been signed.

So, does the new amendment clarify our situation at all?

chocluver

Not sure I understand your concern for your situation Jabberwk. You appear to say that your initial deposit was passed in to protection and it remains protected (or did when you last checked).

If it is the custodial scheme, your deposit will not just disappear, and the landlord cannot obtain the deposit without your agreement. (May be different for insurance based schemes, I have no experience of these).

Have I missed the point of your concern?

Jabberwk

The point of my concern is wanting to know where we stand legally as unfortunately we cannot trust our letting agency to behave as they should. We have had a number of issues with them playing fast and loose with the law and our tenancy rights in the past and this experience makes me worry that when we eventually move we may have to fight to get the correct share of our deposit back. It would therefore be useful to know whether I have any extra ammunition available, should I need to use it.

when_will_it_end

I feel more confused after reading the link.

I paid a deposit in 2006
Went to periodic in 2008
Deposit was not protected
I have a s21 is it valid now

Sorry for seeming dim

Thanks

lighting_up_the_chalice

when_will_it_end wrote: »

I feel more confused after reading the link.

I paid a deposit in 2006
Went to periodic in 2008
Deposit was not protected
I have a s21 is it valid now

Sorry for seeming dim

Thanks

Based on the above information, no, the S21 isn't valid as the deposit hasn't been protected. The amendment being discussed will not change that.

G_M

I thought this thread was a useful 'heads up' and/or discussion on the possible new legislation? Confusingly it's now become a thread about potential current deposit scenarios - unrelated to the "new information on superstrike case"

However:

Jabberwk wrote: »

I'm a bit confused over whether my deposit is being properly protected. The advice I've received previously from both Shelter and the deposit protection scheme has carefully used the word 'may' ("your deposit may not have been properly protected") when considering the results of the superstrike case.
very wise as it's impossible to anticipate exactly how courts will rule
Not sure if this new amendment would change things or not.

Our situation is that, although the people in the property have remained the same, we have signed a new fixed term tenancy agreement each year
New tenancy - new deposit
(our letting agents will not allow us to move onto a rolling contract,
they cannot stop you - no question of 'allow'
but insisted we either sign a new contract or they serve a section 21 notice).
is the landlord going to be happy about this S21?
As it happens, in both the last tenancy agreement and the one we are about to sign, some clauses in the contract have been amended, but even if this had not been the case we still would have had to sign a new contract each year.

Our deposit was protected at the start of the first tenancy agreement and when I log into the deposit protection service the information listed against it is that the tenancy is for 12 months from the date of that initial agreement. Nothing has been done in relation to the deposit when the new contracts have been signed.

So, does the new amendment clarify our situation at all?

1) the 'new amendment' is not in force, so no
2) the 'new amendment' applies to tenancies which become SPTs, so no

I paid a deposit in 2006
Went to periodic in 2008
Deposit was not protected
I have a s21 is it valid now

No. The court may (:rotfl:) well rule the S21 invalid since the deposit should (probobly) have been registered in 2008.

thequant

why all this constant messing about with deposit & S21 legislation ?


is it not simple to say All deposits have to be protected regardless.


Likewise for the S21 issue, this could be easily sorted by saying if a deposit is not protected in time, the AST becomes a regulated tenancy and a S21 can never be issued.


i.e. if you prove to be a bad landlord, you lose your right to be covered by the AST laws.


That will soon get rid of a lot of bad landlords