We have covered tenancy deposits at length previously and (small post here)the issues they can cause if not protected, if the prescribed information has not been given to the tenant and how ultimately it means a s21 notice will not be valid and a hefty claim can be made against the Landlord.
As Industry observers would know Ben Chataway caused a big ripple in this field with Superstrike [2013] EWCA Civ 669. The extra obligations imposed were a housing defence lawyers new port of call to try and invalidate a s21 notice. Recently MTG Solicitors and Jim Shepherd successfully ran an argument at Brentford CC before Nisa DJ argued despite the deposit being taken pre-2007 it still had to be protected. (here the periodic tenancy also had started pre-2007) and as it was not, the s21 was invalid.
The matter was found in the clients favour and s21 notice was deemed invalid with a request of appeal from the other side refused. (Yay!)
Fast forward a few weeks and the government are looking to patch Superstrike and trying to make things “simpler”. (Proposed Bill – skip to page 13)
What it is proposing is as follows:
- If deposit taken post 2007 and it is protected and prescribed information served there is no need to re-protect or reserve on renewal (periodic);
- If deposit taken pre-200, you have 90 days to protect the deposit fro commencement or earlier if s214 or s21 proceedings pending;
- a s214 or s21 claim before commencement will still be allowed to rely on Superstike and any that are determined after will rely on new amendment;
What this means is in effect two things, one there will be a lot of cases that will have counsel on either side trying to speed up or slow down proceedings so they are caught by Superstrike or Amendment depending on what would be beneficial. Secondly the deposit defence and claim will no be extended to include deposits pre-2007.
In effect now a deposit is a deposit is a deposit and will ALWAYS need to be protected if it was taken in relation to a fixed term residential tenancy.
