Section 21 - IMPORTANT

[Richlist]

I've just copied this post from another site so am not claiming the contents as mine.......but important for all of us to know:-

If you're a landlord of a property where you took the deposit and the tenancy went periodic before the tenancy deposit regulations came into force in April 2007 you probably think you aren't affected by the regulations.

Think again!

The Court of Appeal have just decided the case of Charalambous v Ng. In this case the deposit was paid to the landlord in 2002 and the tenancy went periodic in 2005. The landlord issued possession proceedings, having served the section 21 notice in 2012.

The C of A have held that although the landlord was not in breach of the regulations, and was not therefore liable to pay the statutory penalty, the section 21 notice was still invalid.

This is down to the wording of s215(1)(a) Housing Act 2004 which says:

(1) ... if a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when —
(a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme ...

So if you're in this situation you need either to protect the deposit or return it to the tenant before issuing your section 21 notice, otherwise you could be in for a very expensive lesson in housing law.

[Mortitia]

I don't quite get that Richlist. Housing Act 2004 -OK - but deposit protection came in 7th April 2007 and reviewed again in 2012 under the Localism Act/bill.

[Richlist]

I'm no expert on the 2004 Act....and I'm certainly not going to read through it to check if the wording is correct ..... maybe it was written by somebody who had the forethought to plan ahead in case authorised schemes came into force.

The original post was made by a solicitor so I have confidence its contents are correct.

[Melboy]

It is mentioned on the DPS website as RL has described.

[Carryon Regardless]

Surely a typo, otherwise for nearly 3 years LL's having taken deposits would have no where to lodge the deposit but would be contravening the legislation for not having done so.

Mind I have been of the opinion that the Housing Acts were written by people in a different real world to us anyway, so maybe.

[Richlist]

Surely a typo, otherwise for nearly 3 years LL's having taken deposits would have no where to lodge the deposit but would be contravening the legislation for not having done so.

Absolutely not.

If there was no authorised scheme in place beween 2004 - 2007 then nobody was breaking the rules by not having the deposit protected. Any S21 would not have been disqualified on that particular rule.......until NOW.