How to help bring about changes to legislation post “Superstrike”

Done 🙁

I had already worked out these figures by June 12th, the day after the Superstrike Court of appeal decision was first made public. Needless to say, I've not been sleeping too well ever since!
.

Mary

The threat beyond Superstrike is obvious and immense. The CoA had determined, quite correctly, that a SPT is a new tenancy.

They have also referred to the deposit on that new tenancy being a new deposit - even if the same money.

I'd have thought the threat obvious, but here is my opinion bearing in mind I was one of the (very) few to consistently say a periodic is a new tenancy, and that you need to re-protect (whatever that involves) and re-serve PI:-

There is a huge amount of info now coming out and complex tables. In simple terms:-

Every time you do a re-let to new tenants protect and serve PI

Every time those tenants renew do the same

If those tenants go periodic, do the same

On existing tenancies

If they renew, do as above

If they go periodic, do as above

On all existing tenancies where they are still fixed term or periodic - review your paperwork and if not 100% correct i.e. if you have not both protected and served 100% correct PI, decide what to do between :-

1. Doing nothing

2. Satisfying TDP now on the existing tenancy fixed term or periodic, or

3. Doing a renewal and satisfying TDP

All other comment is just additional words - do as above and be 100% safe.

Or don't and risk it

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "07/08/2013 - 16:02":

Just suppose you were advising a landlord who held, say £26,000 of tenants deposits, all of which had been protected correctly at the commencement of the AST with DPC and PI correctly completed and served. Humour me on that one, I know you think that's unlikely but I don't want us to go off at a tangent please.

Now, let's assume that all of those tenancies reverted to SPT's more than 30 days ago without prescribed information being re-served.

What, if any, solution do you think exists for a landlord to protect himself against claims of between 1 and 3 times the value of the deposit, i.e . between £26,000 to £78,000 in the example above, plus of course the £26,000 of deposits and thus a total potential exposure of £104,000?

I'm particularly interested in discussing ways to negate the risk of financial claims only. I appreciate that other considerations such as ability to gain possession under s.21 are also important but I would like to focus in purely on exposure to potential claims and ways to mitigate that risk please.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "07/08/2013 - 16:02":

Nr nr, nr nr What took you so long? I don't look so good with a stumpy little nose hahahahahaha

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is here >>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

@Industry Observer - any ideas yet? This is your opportunity to show that you are equally smart at solving problems as you are at spotting them. You've been talking about this problem for years, you were right, we were wrong, well done. Surely you have given some thought to the solution to the ptoblems created by everybody else's ignorance haven't you?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "07/08/2013 - 16:02":

Please can I have your thoughts on whether an agreed rent increase on a periodic tenancy also needs the deposit to be re-protected and new PI issued?

Then we would be:
Issuing PI at the start of the Fixed Term and placing deposit in the DPS
Re-issuing PI at SPT, deposit remains protected in the DPS
Re-issuing PI on agreed rent increase during SPT, deposit remains protected in the DPS

Any thoughts please?

Reply to the comment left by "Anon 44 " at "08/08/2013 - 12:34":

PS I have completed the survey in Mary's post

It's not often that Industry Observer is so quiet, but I can tell you one good reason why this might be so.

There are two problems that Mary has not mentioned.

First of all, SPTs end with each period, ie (usually) each month. Therefore, the logical conclusion of Superstrike is the delightful prospect of serving deposit papers every month.

Secondly, in order to comply with the legislation for tenancy deposits you have to comply with the rules of your scheme. Ayannuga v Swindells taught us that. If your scheme tells you that you do not need to re-register the deposit when a tenancy reverts to a SPT, then if you ignore this, you are not complying with the scheme rules. However, the Court of Appeal tells us you must re-register. This creates a vicious circle.

The only solution if for some landlords with an understanding of how deposits actually work to sit down with representatives of DCLG (or whatever acronym now applies) and demand the whole mess is sorted out with new legislation.

Reply to the comment left by "Robert M " at "08/08/2013 - 17:47":

The reasons why the PI does not need to be re-served monthly on an SPT was explained to me and the legislation was also provided, I will try to dig it out for you but IO may well beat me to it.

The Deposit Protection Schemes have all sat down with the DCLG and many of them are very experienced landlords. The guidance came out as it did as there was no other choice, only legislation or a Supreme Court ruling/guidance can change where we are now, unless of course IO or some other very clever people can come up with the solution to the question which I raised in my post of 14:37 yesterday afternoon.
.

Just glad I have no SPTs

"No other choice, only legislation .... can change where we are now"

Agreed

I have no faith that the Supreme Court can help much. They do not have a record for creating silk purses.