Interesting little case I heard about on the grapevine and not one I'm directly involved in sadly.
If a tenant signed a 6 month fixed term AST and his deposit was protected in the correct way and then signs a new 6 month AST in the same property after the old one expires then does the Landlord have to notify the tenant in the same way who the deposit is protected by.
In this case the client had been given a sec 21 1b on the same day as his fixed term and the Letting Agent are relying on the fact they protected his deposit for the first tenancy agreement and that the deposit was still being protected by the same scheme.
I'm thinking that the Letting Agent should at least have notified the client that his deposit in respect to the new tenancy was being protected in the same way as the old.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Untested in a reported judgment as far as I know.
There is a clear technical argument for a fresh notification, but, technically, the deposit should be repaid to the tenant and paid back again as deposit. I suspect that, if nothing has changed, the original notification would probably be taken as practical, if not technical, satisfaction - the tenant being taken to having consented to the 'transfer' of the deposit on the same terms.
But I could well be wrong - hey bring the test case...
It was an interesting one as the new tenancy agreement was just a standard format one stating the deposit would be protected and the tenant would be notified in 14 days as to what scheme the landlord was using.
I'll have to find out from some TDS if the tenant signs a new agreement whether it's actually still correctly protected by them if the landlord hasn't notified them of the new agreement which in this case they wouldn't have had the chance to do.
Post a Comment