Deposit paid before 6/4/07 but tenancy began after then

[jenna0903]

Can you Help?

I need some advice on whether my tenancy deposit should be protected?

I have phoned many helplines (shelter etc), visited my CAB, and local housing office to find out but as it is not a clear cut case I feel I am only getting opinions rather than the written law of my situation.

Here goes:

I signed my tenancy agreement on 14 march 07 and paid a holding deposit of £500. My tenancy agreement states that tenancy commencement date is 22nd April 07.

On 19th April 07 I paid first months rent plus a further £525 deposit making up my total deposit equal to 6 weeks rent of £1025.

Then on 22nd April 07 we moved into the property as agreed on our tenancy.


My landlady says that the deposit does NOT need to be protected as first deposit instalment was paid before 6th April 2007.

However all the advice I have been given from the above people say that they are not sure if the deposit taken before April 6th should be protected, however the deposit payment taken after 6th April SHOULD be protected. This is only their opinions as there in nothing they or myself can find in black in white that says either way if my deposit in full/part should be protected.

I gave verbal notice to my landlady which is due to end 7th June 07 which I tried to retract as there is a change in my circumstances but she will not allow me to retract the notice as she says it is valid. However if the deposit should be protected and and has not been done so then could we retract our notice due to it being 1.invalid 2. not in writing?

[johnjw]

Your tenancy agreement is dated 22nd of April and the protected deposit scheme came into force for tenancies dated from the 6th of April, 2007. It seems clear that all your deposit money should be protected. I don't think the fact that you paid some of the deposit before the 6th of April is relevant.

[Planner]

Dont worry about the notice you have given, its not worth the paper it is (or in this case isnt!) written on. The only way your landlady can get you out is with a court order, no matter if she "believe" your notice still stands.

I think the portion of the deposit you paid after 6th April should be protected.

[jenna0903]

Thanks for your replys

In regard to the notice my landlady says if i do not vacate the property by noon 7th june 08, she will persue me for compensation for legal costs, loss of rent earning as her new tennant(due to move in 7th june) is going to be paying a higher rent than I, compensation for new tenant not being able to move in on their agreed date.

Can she do this?

Also if I do manage to find somewhere else by this date is she allowed to give me a bad reference as there is now bad feeling between us. even though there has been no rent arrears or damage to property or any problems throughout the tenancy??

[House]

She can try and pursue you as much as she wants but I would hope that after getting some legal advice she would be told not to waste her time and money.

I'd agree with Johnjw about your deposit. The tenancy commenced after 6th April and you had paid a deposit in connection with that tenancy.

I'd remind your landlady about harassment. Your entitled to enjoy your tenancy until it comes to an end which is usually by means of surrender, court order or NTQ in writting.

I had a landlord this week who was relentless in her belief she could do whatever she wanted after the tenants notice had ended.

Also until your deposit is protected I'd say any sec 21 notice she gives you won't work.

I think you're the one holding all the aces!

[Poppy35]

def agree your deposit should be protected as T commenced after 6th April regardless of when the monies were paid.

I would perhaps mention the compensation due to you for her not protecting the deposit and see what she does from there on!

[Esio Trot]

I gave verbal notice to my landlady which is due to end 7th June 07 which I tried to retract as there is a change in my circumstances but she will not allow me to retract the notice as she says it is valid.

Thankfully your notice was verbal - this is not valid, as it should be in writing. Had it been valid then s18 of the Distress from Rent Act 1737 might have applied:

... and shall not accordingly deliver up the possession thereof at the time in such notice contained, that then the said tenant or tenants, his, her, or their executors or administrators, shall from thenceforward pay to the landlord or landlords, lessor or lessors, double the rent or sum which he, she, or they should otherwise have paid ...

def agree your deposit should be protected as T commenced after 6th April regardless of when the monies were paid.

I beg to differ with you here. When the legislation speaks of deposits, a key element is when it was paid - not when the tenancy commenced.

Thus had the full deposit been paid in March and not just the £500 portion, DP would not have applied. However, as the remainder deposit was paid after 6 April, deposit protection is required.

[johnjw]

Thankfully your notice was verbal - this is not valid, as it should be in writing. Had it been valid then s18 of the Distress from Rent Act 1737 might have applied:


I beg to differ with you here. When the legislation speaks of deposits, a key element is when it was paid - not when the tenancy commenced.

Thus had the full deposit been paid in March and not just the £500 portion, DP would not have applied. However, as the remainder deposit was paid after 6 April, deposit protection is required.

The holding deposit should have been returned when the tenancy commenced on the 22nd of April and "holding" ceased.
However, if it was retained at that point as part of the AST deposit, then it should have been protected along with the rest of the deposit money paid.
Your landlord is in a very weak position.

[johnboy]

The contract is legally binding from the day it is signed and dated it doesnt matter that the move in date was after the new deposit scheme started. If you signed, dated and handed over deposit before the deposit scheme started the Landlord/Agent did not have to protect the deposit.

How that fits in if the deposit is only part paid in march and the rest in April i dont know. But i suppose if you have a contract dated and signed march stating the full deposit has been paid that is what the courts would go on regardless if you paid some in april.

According to the 1977 protection from eviction act a valid notice to quit should be in writing and no less than 4 weeks

[jenna0903]

The contract is legally binding from the day it is signed and dated it doesnt matter that the move in date was after the new deposit scheme started. If you signed, dated and handed over deposit before the deposit scheme started the Landlord/Agent did not have to protect the deposit.

How that fits in if the deposit is only part paid in march and the rest in April i dont know. But i suppose if you have a contract dated and signed march stating the full deposit has been paid that is what the courts would go on regardless if you paid some in april.

My tenancy agreement signed in March does not state that the deposit has been paid- it states the deposit amount.

[johnboy]

In my opinion in the eyes of the law that would imply the full deposit was handed over then as well even if it wasnt. If it went to court I'm sure the L/L would say it was unless there was proof stating otherwise.

[jeffrey]

My tenancy agreement signed in March does not state that the deposit has been paid- it states the deposit amount.

So on what date does it state that T pays deposit: "on the date of this Agreement" or what else?

[jenna0903]

My tenancy agreement does not state the date at which deposit was paid or should be paid- I do have proof of when payments were paid as I paid by cheque on both occassions.

[jeffrey]

My tenancy agreement does not state the date at which deposit was paid or should be paid- I do have proof of when payments were paid as I paid by cheque on both occasions.

(Sigh) SO what does the AST say re deposit? Please state precise wording, or no-one can tell what the position is.

[Planner]

Once again, the portion of the deposit taken prior to 6th April 2007 DOES NOT have to be protected no matter if the contract began after the 6th April 2007. Theres no point in discussion this its a fact. The question is should the portion of the deposit taken after 6th April 2007 be protected? possibly but its proving that it was paid after that date which the O/P says they cant do.

http://www.thedisputeservice.co.uk/index.php?p=7

5 What is the status of deposits paid in advance - usually by students?


5.1 Full deposit was taken before 6 April 2007 (e.g. in March) for an assured shorthold tenancy starting after 6 April 2007 (e.g. in September 2007). Will the deposit need to be protected under a Government-authorised scheme and, if so, at what point?
No deposit taken before 6th April for a tenancy starting after that date will be required to be held under an authorised scheme.

5.2 Full deposit was taken on or after 6 April 2007 (e.g. May 2007) for an assured shorthold tenancy which starts after 6 April 2007 (e.g. in September 2007). Will the deposit need to be protected under a Government-authorised scheme and, if so, at what point?
Yes. If a deposit is taken on or after 6 April 2007, for a property which the tenant will take up occupation in September 2007, the landlord will be required to protect the deposit in an authorised Scheme and to do so when the deposit has been paid to the landlord i.e. in May 2007.

5.3 Holding deposit (i.e. where there are no contractual obligations on the landlord, under the terms of the Act) was taken on or after 6 April 2007 (e.g. May 2007) for an assured shorthold tenancy which starts on or after 6 April (e.g. in September 2007). Will the holding deposit need to be protected under a Government-authorised scheme?
No. A holding deposit will not be a tenancy deposit for the purposes of section 212 of the Act and will not be required to be held under an authorised Scheme. A deposit is only required to be placed in a scheme if it is money held (by a landlord or otherwise, e.g. an agent on his behalf) which is paid as security for the performance of any obligations of the tenant of this discharge of any liability, arising under or in connection with the tenancy. So if the tenancy agreement has not been entered into, and there are no contractual obligations resting on the tenant, the deposit paid is not a deposit for the purposes of the Act.
6 General questions