Comments on: Tenancy Deposit – variations on a theme

By: Sean Pettit

Sean Pettit — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:44:06 +0000

Apologies to all. Yes, the report is wrong (my mistake) the deposit was £2,400, but that was 2x the rent which was £1,200pm. (well spotted, though, Francis)

By: NL

NL — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:58:54 +0000

The ‘renewal’ issue has been quite vigorously debated in this post and comments – http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/04/tenancy-deposit-renewal-of-tenancy/ and this included views on fixed term to periodic
For what it is worth, I agree with your view. Others don’t.

I take the s.215 point. Although given the drafting, I suppose it could also be read to cover any s.21 notice in relation to a tenancy with an unprotected deposit, regardless of whether the s.21 was served prior to the requirement to protect or not. Messy.

By: NL

NL — Mon, 25 May 2009 14:47:00 +0000

Thanks Niki. I’d taken it that the report was in error on that point.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 25 May 2009 13:53:02 +0000

Sorry tried to edit that without success. I did of course mean the situation where an SPT has since arisen post April 2007 and no proceedings were brought at the time.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:12:14 +0000

I don’t know whether this issue has been raised before – but I am firmly of the view that any deposit retained at the end of a fixed term that began before April 2007 but ended after that should be treated as falling within Section 213 .

What however is the correct interpretation of the effect of Section 215 on a Section 21(1)(b) notice ? Arguably, if it was given before the deposit was required to be in an authorised scheme , it is valid . Which seems to be another drafting error .

I think it can be argued that for this purpose that if a new tenancy has arisen that required the deposit to be protected that the mischief rule ought to require the section to be interpreted as meaning that the notice is to be treated as invalid but I am not all that confident about it.

By: NL

NL — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:08:07 +0000

@ Marcin. I think the idea was that if you could afford that level of rent, then you pretty much inevitably knew your way around negotiating a contract. Inflation may have caught up with that view.

On retrospectivity – we don’t know.
http://painsmith.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/changes-to-asts/

By: Marcin

Marcin — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:43:37 +0000

I know it hasn’t changed, but it seems to be pretty horrible to have a cut-off at all, as it the attitude underlying it seems to be that if you’re wealthy enough, then you deserve to have to deal with unscrupulous landlords and bear the cost of litigation.

No chance that the plan is to change the amount retrospectively?

By: NL

NL — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:27:03 +0000

It just hasn’t been changed since 1988 or so. It is proposed to change the cut off to £100,000 in the near future, but when this will come into force is anyone’s guess.

By: Marcin

Marcin — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:17:57 +0000

Incidentally, is there any justification for the maximum rent level for an AST, especially as it is so low?

(It looks like I am about to be bitten by this, so I am particularly bitter about this legislative non-sense).

By: Niki Goss

Niki Goss — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:00:46 +0000

rent level wrong [see comment below]