New form N5

[VictorKilo3]

I notice that the new form N5 is now different from the old ones and para 9 has been amended. can someone tell me what is the difference betwen 9(b) (ii) and (iii). L must confirm that

9 (b) (ii) The initial requrements of the TDS had been complied with in relation to the deposit

and

9(b) (iii) The claimant had given the defendent and anyone who paid the deposit on behalf of the defendant the prescribed information in relation to the deposit and the operation of the TDS.

Surely if 9(b) (iii) is given then 9(b) (ii) must follow automatically? Can 9(b) (i) and (iii) be complied without compliance of 9(b) (ii)?

[Mrs Mug]

Can 9(b) (i) and (iii) be complied without compliance of 9(b) (ii)?

What does 9(b) (i) say?

[VictorKilo3]

9b(i) The deposit was held under a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) authorised under Part 6 of the Housing Act 2004.

[jeffrey]

So haven't you satisfied all three points and, if you have, what's the problem?

[VictorKilo3]

The issue is this 14 day rule. Since the protection was made after the 14 days and the prescribed form was sent after the 14 days i.e. late but all before the sec 21 notice was issued, then can 9(b) (ii) still be considered not satisfied. The whole thing rest on an interpretation of whether 14 days is part of the initial requirement of the scheme? If this is the case then anyone who has not protected the deposit AND sent out the prescribe info within 14 days will NEVER be able to issue a Sec 21 notice ever!

[VictorKilo3]

Just read the Draycott case again. The high court judge has ruled that the 14 days is NOT part of the initial requirement: "In my judgment, the requirement that there be payment into the Scheme is the initial requirement of the Scheme, and not the requirement that that be done within 14 days." So it seems that once the deposit is protected and prescribed info sent then the initial requirement has been complied.