Section 21 Notice but Deposit not protected

silvercar

According to the mydeposits website, if you renew a contract on an existing protected deposit you have to unprotect and then register the deposit again. If you move to a periodic tenancy the deposit remains protected and you don't need to pay again.

I find this strange as the landlord is holding the deposit here, so in both cases no money is actually changing hands, the tenant isn't changing but one way requires a further landlord payment and one doesn't.

lamby1_2

Hi I am new to this forum but have been reading with interest.

Having just spoken the the DPS I have established the following which may useful:

a. The Prescribed Information needs to be issued with 14 days of physical receipt of the deposit even if the tenancy has not started.

b. If a deposit is already protected with DPS and a renewal AST is created no action is needed as the deposit is already protected and the original PI ( Prescribed Information ) stands. There is no need to request the money back and then redeposit.

c. The DPS allow for changes such as adding additional tenants and change of LL or LA on their website and in both these changes the original PI stands as long as the deposit amount has not increased.

d. Rent increases which are applied to periodic ASTs do not form a new agreement for the purposes of protecting the deposit on those collected before 6th April 2007 and there is no further action needed on deposits already protected on the scheme.

In summary I think that it is fair to say that the PI is related to the original point that the deposit falls under the legislation and once issued, & the deposit protected, it does not need to be re-supplied at any other point of the arrangements between the same LL & Tenant.

Also as an extra note in response to some of the earlier posts it is recommended that the prescribed information is signed by the tenant and the LL by way of proof of receipt. It is the LL's responsibility or LA if appointed to ensure receipt of the PI and my understanding is that the onus is on the LL/LA to prove that the T DID get the PI rather than just prove that they sent it.

We get the T to sign the PI and agree that they have rec'd a copy and that we have also supplied a set of DPS T&Cs on the day that they pay us the deposit ( hence within the 14 days ). We then keep a copy of their signed PI in case we need to issue a section 21 notice. The DPS also write to the T with the scheme details but the information that they suppy is not the full PI so the LL must ensure that they provide the details as set out by the law aswell as protecting the deposit.

Sorry for so much blurb but have working on this for so long and thought the info may be helpful.

lamby1_2

Following on from my last post having asked the DPS to confirm in writing that the addition of a tenant, thus creating a new AST on an already protected deposit and updating the DPS does not require a new PI....

They have now informed me that it DOES require a new PI to be issued to the tenant.....

Probably best to issue a new PI on any relevant new AST that is not just a renewal.

Makes you so angry that you spend so long getting to grips with this new legislation and think you've got it right and then they give you conflicting advice.

Don't suspect a judge will care too much about that if you get clobbered for 3 times the deposit!