new information on superstrike case

jamie11

thequant wrote: »

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

I don't approve of landlords flouting the rules but if you're wanting to bring back RT's the PRS will collapse.

It's not a bad idea though, might be a bit draconian.

G_M

thequant wrote: »

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

Define 'bad landlord'? Rackman? Joe Bloggs who gets a job abroad, is in negative equity so can't sell, so rushes into letting?

I'm not saying Joe isn't a bad LL if he fails to register a deposit through ignorance, but it's a different 'bad'.

Allowing him a way to return to his home after his year abroad seems sensible. Hence the rule saying he can return the deposit and then issue a valid S21.

Jabberwk

Thanks GM. Sorry for hijacking the thread for a personal matter, but I was having difficulty in understanding the possible amendment to the legislation and whether, if it comes into force, my situation would be an example of the type it clarified. As someone who's rented for many years I'm interested in general in discussions on tenancy law so, regardless of my own situation, I'll be following the discussions in this thread with interest.

In answer to your comments in red: they stop it turning into a rolling contract by contacting us four months before the end of the fixed term to say we can either sign a new contract 2 months before the fixed term ends, or they will issue an s21 at that point and start advertising the flat to others. the landlady is happy for them to run things in this way. yes, we could ignore the s21 so as to move onto a rolling contract, but then we'd just end up being evicted by a court instead of by a letter, which all seems rather unnecessary and unfair to the landlady and doesn't benefit us in the long term.

lighting_up_the_chalice

thequant wrote: »

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

Because they get challenged in court, which can change the interpretation. S21 was recently challenged and that's 25 year old!

thequant wrote: »

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

Which is, pretty much, the way it is now. Why re-invent the wheel if you want to keep things simple?