Asking on behalf of a friend - is this an AST, statutory periodic...or neither??

[chickpea]

A friend has recently returned from an extended period living abroad.

During this time, she and her husband rented out their house.

They managed the whole let themselves, but appear to have run into some issues at the end of the tenancy, regarding the deposit and whether in fact it was properly protected after the initial fixed term.

It appears the tenancy began with an initial AST of 6 months. After this time, my friend sent a new copy of the original agreement, with a fixed term of 3 months. At the end of that period, she sent another agreement with a fixed term of 7 months.

Do these subsequent agreements constitute AST's, if they are for periods less/more than 6 months, but less than 12?

At no point did she re protect the deposit,and because of this, the TDS recommended that she pay the entire deposit back to the tenant, despite the tenant leaving the property dirty and damaged.

Of course, I have told her that the tenant is still within their rights to sue her for up to 3 times the value of the deposit for non-protection.

However, am I correct in thinking that the deposit wasn't properly protected, because the tenancy agreements she issued were all ASTs?

From what I can gather, she protected the deposit at the outset,but didn't issue the P.I, only the certificate.

[Grampa]

Unless any tenancy agreement states to the contry (such as an assured tenancy or common law tenancy if applicable) It will default to assured shorthold tenancy and it doesn't matter what length of time you did it for as the minimum length of 6 months doesn't apply any more.

Not giving the PI is the same as not protecting the deposit so your friend has gone over the parapet and there is no going back regarding a potential x3 (up to) claim from the tenant.

So it is all about damage limitation now. If she needs to serve a s21 the deposit needs to be returned

If the tenants are aware of the breach in regulation's your friend could submit a counter claim for damages to the property IF THEY CAN PROVE IT VIA AN SIGNED INVENTORY. If you don't think the tenants are aware of a breach I would advise they return the deposit and hope that is the end of the matter.

If they do return the deposit they could send a chq with an letter stating this is full and final settlement relation to the tenancy and any deposit claim. That may muddy the waters enough for them to think it relates to damages and not a x3 deposit claim. Don't know how a court would look at it but could make a difference if they do think about a claim and they banked the chq.

[chickpea]

After a bit of research on the net, I can see that all subsequent tenancy agreements WERE ASTs, so she should have protected the deposit each time and given the tenant the PI.

It seems she's had a lucky escape so far - at least she has her property back.

[chickpea]

Unless any tenancy agreement states to the contry (such as an assured tenancy or common law tenancy if applicable) It will default to assured shorthold tenancy and it doesn't matter what length of time you did it for as the minimum length of 6 months doesn't apply any more.Not giving the PI is the same as not protecting the deposit so your friend has gone over the parapet and there is no going back regarding a potential x3 (up to) claim from the tenant.So it is all about damage limitation now. If she needs to serve a s21 the deposit needs to be returnedIf the tenants are aware of the breach in regulation's your friend could submit a counter claim for damages to the property IF THEY CAN PROVE IT VIA AN SIGNED INVENTORY. If you don't think the tenants are aware of a breach I would advise they return the deposit and hope that is the end of the matter.If they do return the deposit they could send a chq with an letter stating this is full and final settlement relation to the tenancy and any deposit claim. That may muddy the waters enough for them to think it relates to damages and not a x3 deposit claim. Don't know how a court would look at it but could make a difference if they do think about a claim.

Thanks Grampa - I posted my previous post before I saw yours.

She has the property back, luckily (without issuing a s.21 - just a letter to the tenant, giving them notice) and has already returned the deposit, as advised by the TDS.

I'm guessing a letter to the tenant after the event might raise the tenant's suspicions?

I don't know what form the inventory took or whether it was signed. Nor do I know how the check out was conducted. I have told her that I think she's had a lucky escape and a steep learning curve - and suggested she uses a knowledgeable agent next time.