Deposit protected late: is AST therefore void?

[Izzycam]

My solicitor mentioned to me yesterday that a client of hers had put a deposit into a deposit scheme late and because of this they're 6 months assured tenancy agreement was null and void.
Is this right or wrong. Thanks

[PaulF]

Your solicitor needs urgent retraining! Remember an AST can be created orally as well as in writing. By not protecting the deposit within 14 days of receipt leaves the L open to being taken to court by the tenant for compensation of 3x the deposit, but this is not always the case, just because it was 'protected' late. An AST is not void by such action and is very much "alive".

[westminster]

See s.214 and s.215 HA2004 which specify the sanctions for failing to protection the deposit.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004..._en_19#pt6-ch4

These do not include making the tenancy 'null and void'.

[jeffrey]

My solicitor mentioned to me yesterday that a client of hers had put a deposit into a deposit scheme late and because of this they're 6 months assured tenancy agreement was null and void.
Is this right or wrong. Thanks

If it's an 'Assured Tenancy', is it:
a. a Standard Assured Tenancy; or
b. an Assured Shorthold Tenancy?
Only an AST is covered by the Deposit Protection rules- but, as others have already stated, the letting is valid despite failure to protect T's deposit.

[Izzycam]

I did think this was an unusual thing to say, that's why I thought I would check with you guys first, always handy to know the rules and regulations,and also not to take everything professionals say at face value.
RE Jeffrey, I'm not sure which tenancy agreement it was as it was for another client of hers.(I think she said AST)
Thanks for the insight.

[Lawcruncher]

If a tenancy were null and void for failure to register a deposit it would of course mean that a landlord could defeat a tenancy by not registering the deposit. A slight lapse of concentration on the part of your solicitor.

[jeffrey]

If a tenancy were null and void for failure to register a deposit it would of course mean that a landlord could defeat a tenancy by not registering the deposit. A slight lapse of concentration on the part of your solicitor.

Maybe what the solicitor said/meant was that a s.21 Notice served by client before late protection of deposit was null and void (which would be true).

[Moderator1]

Posts concerning the position when L receives a deposit in instalments have been moved to http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ad.php?t=25650