Section 21 Notice but Deposit not protected

speedtwin

I totally agree

MissMoneypenny

speedtwin wrote: »

Or if the section 21 served before the deposit was protected itis invalid,

I read that too, on a solicitors site. I thought I had bookmarked it, but can't find it now. They also said that any section 21 served when the tenancy was signed, would not be legally enforceable, as the deposit wouldn't have been protected at that point.

Debt_Free_Chick

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I beg to differ...


This just re-iterates the current legal position. That is to say that Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 is still applicable

I read it completely differently the first time .... (and I still think it's badly worded) ... I read is as if the LL were issuing the notice to quit, after the AST had expired. Rather than, the LL wanting to take possession at the end of the AST or soon after.


So - to clarify ... that site is saying that the LL has no right to take possession if the deposit is not protected? (Save, for other rights he has e.g. if the rent is in arrears)?

Why the hell didn't it just say that?

Yes - you're absolutely right and I'm sorry for confusing the issue. Suppose I'd best edit my previous post.

Essentially then, the LL cannot issue a notice to quit, where a deposit has not been protected.

Suggest the OP either "sits tight" and waits for the LL to take moves to repossess the property. Or ..... raise the matter with the LL (or LA). Eventually, though ... if the LL wants the property back, the OP will need to find somewhere else to live and that has to be the priority.

silvercar

Just because you have not received notice that the deposit is protected it doesn't mean that it hasn't been protected.

One of the 3 schemes (at least) got into a big admin mess and failed to notify tenants, it then decided to push the obligation to notify tenants to the landlord, so there could well be deposits protected without tenant notification.

Catblue

The OP did ask the agent and the agent confirmed that his deposit is NOT protected in a scheme.

teeni

silvercar wrote: »

Just because you have not received notice that the deposit is protected it doesn't mean that it hasn't been protected.

One of the 3 schemes (at least) got into a big admin mess and failed to notify tenants, it then decided to push the obligation to notify tenants to the landlord, so there could well be deposits protected without tenant notification.

The law is clear if the deposit has not been protected or if the tenant has not been notified of which scheme it is deposited in with in 14 days the ll can not rely on s21. therefore even if the deposit is protected but the tenant has not been given the details there is an absolute defence to the possession .

In this case the deposit has not been protected so ll can not rely upon s21 and tenant could claim 3 times the deposit from the ll.

danielson81

Thanks for all your replies. The LA said the landlady is selling the house.

I think we might just move out in March and pursue the deposit through the court if there are any major discrepancies.

Thanks once again.

clutton_2

""They also said that any section 21 served when the tenancy was signed, would not be legally enforceable, as the deposit wouldn't have been protected at that point.""

all these suggestions are just that - individuals (Ialbeit lawyers) ideas and interpretations of the 2004 Act. Until this is tested in court, we can all enjoy a good debate, but, no one of us is right and no one of us is wrong.

Having said all that - i would not know what to suggest, if you were not an imminent father, i would suggest just staying put and watch the LL really struggle to get you out - but with the baby on the way so soon - for your own peace of mind, maybe moving out now is the best option, and fighting battles over money can come later

teeni

clutton wrote: »

""They also said that any section 21 served when the tenancy was signed, would not be legally enforceable, as the deposit wouldn't have been protected at that point.""

all these suggestions are just that - individuals (Ialbeit lawyers) ideas and interpretations of the 2004 Act. Until this is tested in court, we can all enjoy a good debate, but, no one of us is right and no one of us is wrong.

Hi Clutton
I have had several possession cases thrown out when the tenant has not been notified of the deposit scheme used so this has been tested in court

Will admit that I am waiting for the first challenge to a s21 issued with tenancy agreement. this will be very interesting to see how the courts interpret the law. One landlord I know is issuing the s21 notice with the details of the deposit scheme after the 14 day period, of course the deposit is then in the scheme and both rules are satisfied.

Always glad for a good debate on housing law, as other peoples opinion often give me good ideas that I haven't thought of!!

MissMoneypenny

teeni wrote: »

One landlord I know is issuing the s21 notice with the details of the deposit scheme after the 14 day period, of course the deposit is then in the scheme and both rules are satisfied.

The details have to be given within the fourteen days.
"(6)
The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord."
http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19
Section 213 (6)