Deposit protection for new tenancy

[Snorkerz]

Incidentally, just as side issue, how was the old tenancy (the one held by A & B) ended?

AST became periodic and later LL decided (unilaterally) that B was going and A could remain (+ kids)with new AST. Tenancy agreement for A shows 'deposit already held'

Have already asked the questions re legality of B being removed (probably not)

[Preston]

I think a little more detail might be required.

For example, if the deposit paid on the A & B tenancy is now held by the landlord. And if (assuming this sum was jointly owned by A & B) both A & B have agreed for it to be used as the deposit on A's new tenancy. And on the basis that the landlord and A agreed that a deposit was payable on the new tenancy. Then on these facts I think it could well be held that a deposit has been paid and should have been protected.

Incidentally, just as side issue, how was the old tenancy (the one held by A & B) ended?

[Snorkerz]

What if L has indicated in writing that she will deduct rent arrears from the deposit? Does that indicate that a deposit exists for As tenancy, even though it is protected under A&Bs defunct tenancy?

[westminster]

I accept that it can't happen like that - but that's what the landlord did - so I guess I'm asking about the implications now with regard to the s21. It was both the landlords and the tenants intention that the money originally paid for A&Bs deposit be re-used for As new tenancy deposit.

It may have been their intention, but down at the deposit scheme there will be a record saying £x protected for A&B's tenancy commencing [date]. There will be nothing saying £x protected for A's tenancy commencing [later date].

Even if A&B had together signed a new fixed term agreement, the deposit would have had to be re-protected for that new tenancy.

The s.21 served on A is valid because no deposit was paid.

[tom999]

A is served with s21.

Is the deposit protected?

If no deposit was taken for A's new tenancy, then deposit protection is not required (so will not make s.21 invalid).

It was both the landlords and the tenants intention that the money originally paid for A&Bs deposit be re-used for As new tenancy deposit.

Not sure of the legal implications of this, or whether it's even possible, i.e. transferring a deposit from one tenancy to the next.

Is there written proof of the LL's and T's "intentions", e.g. in the AST, or a receipt?

[Snorkerz]

It can't 'carry on'. The deposit relates only to the tenancy it is registered against, i.e. A&B's tenancy, not A's brand new tenancy.

I accept that it can't happen like that - but that's what the landlord did - so I guess I'm asking about the implications now with regard to the s21. It was both the landlords and the tenants intention that the money originally paid for A&Bs deposit be re-used for As new tenancy deposit.

[westminster]

A&B take out an AST and pay a deposit, which is protected.
A&B separate, and A signs a new AST for same property. Original deposit is not returned, but carries on for new tenancy.

It can't 'carry on'. The deposit relates only to the tenancy it is registered against, i.e. A&B's tenancy, not A's brand new tenancy.

[Snorkerz]

A&B take out an AST and pay a deposit, which is protected.
A&B separate, and A signs a new AST for same property. Original deposit is not returned, but carries on for new tenancy.

A is served with s21.

Is the deposit protected?

Or is it simply that the deposit for A&B was never refunded so there is no deposit for A?