Landlords and agents should not be lulled into a sense of false security just because the new legal requirements for deposit protection allow a 30-day period to supply proof of deposit registration to the tenant instead of 14 days as from next week – April 6.
The warning has come from the Tenancy Deposit Scheme.
The new regulations provide for the landlord to be sued on Day 31 for between one and three times the value of the deposit if the deposit has not been registered nor the prescribed information provided.
To help prevent this happening, the TDS has issued plain English answers to all the important questions thrown up by the changes this Easter when the Localism Act comes into force.
After summarising the changes, the Scheme’s answers to FAQs about the new regulations cover whether or not the changes are retrospective, the penalties for missing the new deadlines, renewals, relevant persons and what happens with running tenancies, among the other points to be understood.
“The new provisions for tenancy deposit protection are welcome,” said Steve Harriott, TDS chief executive. “But the extra time for registration is not a licence for landlords and agents to ignore the law. It means that the anomalies in the original Act have now been straightened out to everyone’s benefit.”
Despite the extra time allowed to register deposits, in addition to the courts ordering payments of between one and three times the values of the deposit to the tenants, tenants can claim these payments after they have left the property.
The plain English answers to the new provisions for deposit protection can be found at:
www.tds.gb.com
%20(002).png)
Comments
Its a moot point really as both EW and IO are correct. A Stat Periodic IS a new tenancy. Remember, the whole point of the AST was that the tenancy had no memory and rights would not accrue. When a fixed term ends, it ends. A new tenancy may be created, but the key word is NEW
I think the important thing is that whether Industry Observer is right or wrong about the need for prescribed information on a statutory periodic, can you afford not to do it in case at some future date (say in 6 years) a court decides it is a new tenancy as as such every statutory periodic tenant can claim a no win no fee case.
Clearly new prescribed information is the safe thing, it is a question of your view on taking a risk.
I agree with Industry Observer.
When a fixed term ends and no party does anything and the tenant remains, a statutory periodic tenancy is created replacing that which existed before.
The terms of the previous tenancy remain the same other than those relating to notice - but that is contractual. Statute refers to a fixed term tenancy coming to an end and as such, a new tenancy must arise.
There is little doubt in my mind that this 'replacement' to the fixed term constitutes a new tenancy in Law.
Industry Observer,
I understand your points.
However, what are your thoughts on my last sentence because a lot of the problems we face regarding legislation, introduced by those with little detailed knowledge of the industry, is because the Associations do not get involved eneough right at the beginning of the 'proposal' stage! Where are they?
Ray
I understand and share the angst but saying what you think if the Law thinks (even as an ass) something else means there will only be one winner and one loser.
Like so much other legislation it may not have been the desired outcome (look at a Ground 1 notice where the agent's address can appear four times in 6 sections!!) but if you look at section 5 of the 1988 Housing Act and read the words that are actually there - not what you think the draftsperson meant or what you'd like them to mean - and there can only be one conclusion.
That a periodic tenancy is a new tenancy.
In that section there must be a total combination of about 12 places where the word "on the comning to the end of a fixed term" or "a new tenancy arising" appear. The intention is quite clear a periodic tenancy is a new tenancy at Law.
The only safe way at the moment is if it moves hiot it with a PIN form as any other course might, just might (and in some cases is likely to) lead to an offence having been committed.
And courtesy of LA 2011 there is now, after 30 days of said offence, no escape, none at all.
In my view - whatever anyone says - a Statutory Periodic Tenancy is not a new tenancy it just automatically extends the existing AST - same conditions. If I am wrong what is the point of a SPT and the law is an ass.
Where the h*ll are the Associations when these matters are being considered?
Interesting - just another opinion of course, just like mine, CLG and anyone else's.
No-one nows the exact interpretation of any of this, be it what happens if the post tenancy address was missing, or you didn't know about a relevant person (all you have to do is ask a specific question which sadly most referencing company forms do not) or anything else.
The comment on only tenancies from April 2007 being brough in is interesting in the website - everything else I have seen including as I thought trhe Statute said it was every AST in existence, fixed term or periodic, as at 6th April.
Sopeaking of periodics what is the perceived wisdom there then (as opposed to a renewal where I think the CLG advice is decidely dodgy too as a Replacement Tenancy agreement is a new tenancy - isn't it?!!)
My advice until a test case would be serve a new PIN every time - renewal, re-let or periodic - until someone else has gone first as the test case