The Government is “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required” following the Superstrike case.
Housing minister Mark Prisk has made the revelation in a letter to the Residential Landlords Association.
In his letter, Prisk says that the judgement goes against the “intention” of the original tenancy deposit legislation, and that the Government is “… urgently exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation”.
The letter, to RLA chairman Alan Ward, says: “I am aware that this ruling has implications in respect of the tenancy deposit protection (TDP) legislation and the operation of the tenancy deposit protection schemes.
“There are concerns that the Court of Appeal decision means that where a deposit was taken for an assured shorthold tenancy before the introduction of TDP and continued as a statutory periodic tenancy after 6 April 2007, the landlord should have protected the deposit at the start of the statutory periodic tenancy.
“This was not the intention of the legislation and we are urgently exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation.
“I understand that concerns have also been raised that the decision could have implications for some tenancies where a deposit has been protected in an authorised scheme in relation to a tenancy begun after 6 April 2007 and the fixed term has expired, and the tenancy continues as a statutory periodic tenancy.
“While the Court of Appeal did not make a decision on these particular facts and we cannot advise on individual cases, as a precaution, landlords could decide to re-issue the prescribed information to their tenant(s) which should ensure they can rely on the section 21 procedure if they wish to end the tenancy.
“Again, we are exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation.”
.png)
Comments
I wonder if he will have the strength of character to do what none of his predecessors ever dared to do - let the judiciary give an opinion on the legislation BEFORE it is enacted.
I never understood why any Government would spend millions of pounds on new legislation created by civil servants and then wait to see if the judiciary agreed with what they intended it to do. Governments write the law, the judiciary interprets it. A little cooperation at the start would help everyone and avoid the sort of mess the Superstrike case has raised.
Yes I agree with IO.
Well said Mr Prisk, hope you are able to sort it.
Let us all hope Mark Prisk has more clout than his predecessor Gtant Schapps - he certainly has more sense.
New and 100% clear legislation is what is needed to both clarify past positions and future intentions.
This will take some time to draft correctly - time well spent - and then some time to enact if it is full legislation and not some mini Localism Act 2013 (or 2014 more likely).
Meanwhile take Prisks advice last paragraph. It will legitimise the use of s21 but sadly not avoid the penalties for original non-compliance