Superstrike rules clarity required for 3 times 3 penalty?

Sorry meant to add (and this was uploaded after MdeB at 0900 today hadn't seen that before edit!)

Romain is also right and MdeB would be had there been no change post the original protection and PI service as referred to by Romain.

Superstrike agrees with Romain - and "deemed" means should be taken as

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "20/03/2014 - 09:04":

Regarding protection, I quoted the statute almost verbatim: if the scheme states that there is no need to 'reprotect' then it is all good as statute only states that the scheme's requirements must be complied with.
But it may still require informing the scheme, as most now seem to indeed require following Superstrike.

Even if the deposit is continuously protected, it does not really help re. the PI as giving them everytime a deposit is received is what the statute says.

Same for this "nano second" concept: what triggers protection and PI is receiving a deposit.
It is clear when a new tenancy arises, and it is now clear how to interpret 'receiving a deposit', so all is clear on that front.

Agree - except for a Scheme overriding Statute but I don't think in the final analysis that is what you meant.

If Statute deems something a new tenancy, and that a deposit is re-received on a new tenancy, then Statute is dictating.

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "20/03/2014 - 09:04":

adding to this..

At the end of the fixed term agreement it is the responsibility of the LL/LA to notify the scheme holder of the tenancy status.

At some point (30+ days after the nano-second described) and following a failure by the LL/LA to notify the scheme holder that the tenant is remaining in the property - the deposit will become automatically un-protected.

The DPS scheme holders are now beginning to notify Tenants where this breach has occurred as they too consider themselves to have an obligation under the Tenancy Deposit Protection legislation.

LL's should be aware that such a process will potentially awaken some less than scrupulous (or indeed just dissatisfied) Tenants into action...

Roy and Tania

As I am aware it is so far only Mydeposits that is taking any form of arbitrary action and if they have not been advised within 30 days of tenancy going periodic protection ceases. With the other two schemes protection is ongoing anyway.

If you or anyone knows different then please provide relevant weblink announcing this change.

With DPS custodial for certain you don't have to do anything, though you can volunteer to tell them the periodic start date if you want to

Reply to the comment left by "Industry Observer " at "20/03/2014 - 09:34":

I didn't say that the scheme can override statute, including in deciding what is a new tenancy or when a deposit is received.

What I said is that in statute "protecting a deposit" means complying with the scheme's requirements.
Thus when a landlord receives a deposit what he must do is to comply with the scheme's requirements, which is not the same as having to re-protect.

It is up to the scheme to tell what to do. As said, some schemes (c.f. MyDeposit mentioned by Roy) will continue to protect the deposit as long as the landlord inform them that a statutory periodic AST has been created: There is therefore no need to "re-protect" (whatever that means).
With other schemes there is even no need to inform them apparently.

BUT, again this does not include dealing with the PI as that issue is specifically addressed in the statute, which states that they must be given when a deposit is received.
At face value a landlord should then give them again no matter what. A judge might decide that if nothing has changed it is OK not to as the tenant already has them, but I would not bet on it for the sake of saving a few sheets of paper.

Agree 100% better to protect and not need to than not and wish you had - for the sake of a bit of ink and paper and it gives you the chance to, as far as you can, correct any omissions and errors in any earlier version of the PI.

Though any offence relating to that version will of course have been committed.

Just for everyone's information as promised I have filed a claim with the CCMCC for non protection of deposit for all three tenancies.
The courts received the paperwork (N1 as two claimants and two defendants) on 30/4/14 so I will keep you posted with any developments.

The discussion about the section 21 interests me also as on 7th April 2014 the LL's issued us with a S21(1)(b) expiry date is 7th June 2014?? even though we have a fixed term until 2nd August 14.... is this right? I have been advised to let the LL know so they can serve it again - The S21 does not bother me as the relationship has broken down to the point where I do not want to be here any longer than the fixed term anyway.

I appreciate that there are good LL's out there that do care - but our LL's really don't or I wouldn't be in this situation.

Many thanks and I will of course inform you of any progress 🙂

Reply to the comment left by "Leanne Frisby" at "05/05/2014 - 15:57":

Section 21 is not valid if the deposit was not protected and/or if prescribed information was not correctly served within 30 days of the new tenancy.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "05/05/2014 - 18:52":

Many thanks Mark.

I think I neglected to update that on the 4th April the LL's paid £550 into our bank account - without our knowledge or permission - then on 7th April have issued the section 21(1)(b) with the date of notice starting on 7/4/14 and expiring on 7/6/14 even though our contract is fixed until August.

As I understand it they can serve the section 21 as they had returned the deposit even though it was unprotected as they have returned the full deposit even if it was without our consent.

would the dates make the s21 invalid or will the court overlook this?

Many thanks again for your reply

Leanne