Periodic Tenancy Notice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by MdeB View Post
    I don't see why "likely"; I would accept "possibly".
    You are not questioning the existence of a deposit in relation to that tenancy. So it is likely that the parties have an understanding that it does exist.

    Originally posted by MdeB View Post
    This was discussed recently in another thread (sorry, I do not have reference to hand), and it was pointed out that the prescribed information order para 2(g)(vi) states
    the circumstances when all or part of the deposit may be retained by the landlord, by reference to the terms of the tenancy

    the important phrase being by reference.
    So no written agreement = no reference to terms = no deposit deductions.
    Yes it is a reference because the document is not the contract but just indeed a reference to it.

    It does not imply that the tenancy agreement must be in writing, and indeed there is no legal obligation that it must be.IMO that is exactly why they require relevant terms to be put in writing in the prescribed information, so that there is at least one written document.

    It is quite possible to reference an oral agreement. 'reference' does not imply 'reference to a written document'.

    Comment


      #17
      The prescribed information requirement is separate to any tenancy agreement clause allowing deposit to be retained. Failure to meet 2(g)(vi) doesn't necessarily preclude the deposit being retained under any orally agreed or implied grounds. Also, if the landlord & tenant is the same, property let substantially the same, and deposit remain protected, no new PI would be necessary under deemed compliance anyway.

      "Happy to go onto the rolling contract if the price stays the same"
      I don't see that meets the standard requirement for "acceptance", or "intention to create legal relations" required for contract.
      I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

      I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by KTC View Post
        The prescribed information requirement is separate to any tenancy agreement clause allowing deposit to be retained.
        Indeed. That's not the point, though.

        The point is that even of the tenancy was agreed orally, the terms related to the deposit have to be written down in the prescribed information.

        Originally posted by KTC View Post
        Failure to meet 2(g)(vi) doesn't necessarily preclude the deposit being retained under any orally agreed or implied grounds.
        Failure to meet any requirement of the PI means they were not given correctly.

        Originally posted by KTC View Post
        Also, if the landlord & tenant is the same, property let substantially the same, and deposit remain protected, no new PI would be necessary under deemed compliance anyway.
        This would be true if the terms of the new tenancy were implied, as said.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
          Failure to meet any requirement of the PI means they were not given correctly.
          Yes, but that only creates a liability to a stutatory penalty under s214 of the Housing Act 2004. My point is that the deposit legislation penalty doesn't stop a landlord from deducting from a deposit.
          I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

          I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X