Section 21 and Tenancy Deposit
Tenancy Deposits

0 Thanks
42 Posts
12 years ago
We require advice/clarification on the following:


Tenant moved into the property on 12/12/2005, tenancy granted for 6 months and rent payable weekly. 1 calendar months’ deposit is paid by LA.
Tenant signed a new 6 months tenancy on expiry of the initial 6 months fixed term for another 6 months on 12/06/2006, tenancy became statutorily weekly periodic tenancy on 12/12/2006.
No new fixed term tenancy has been granted after the second tenancy dated 12/06/06.

We have served the tenant a section 21 (4) (A) notice on 09/11/10 and notice expired on 16/01/11.

Claim for possession on accelerated procedure submitted with local county court on 09/02/11.

The tenant and her solicitors are of the opinion that the deposit should be protected as per Saad V Hogan. As they are alleging that the law requires for the deposit to be protected. I have read the above case on Saad V Hogan and in fact the deposit needed to be protected in this court case as the landlord had granted a new tenancy after the law on deposit protection came in to force and he was required to protect the deposit which tenant paid prior to the new law.. But in our case no new tenancy has been granted after the law has come in to force.

My understanding of the deposit protection law is that any new tenancies or any tenancy which is renewed with a new fixed term after 06/04/07 needs to have their deposits protected under the law.

In the above case the tenancy became statutorily periodic prior to the law on deposit coming into force and no new fixed terms were granted after the said law coming in to force.

Also the tenant and her solicitors are alleging that expiry of the notice on 16/01/11 (A Sunday) is wrong as they believe that the notice should have expired on a Monday and they are also not happy with our saving clause wording “Or at the end of the priod of your tenancy which will end after the expiry of two months from the service upon you of this notice” they are alleging that the saving clause is invalid as the following words are missing from it “if this notice would otherwise be effective”. I have researched into this and I have come across Church Commission for England V Gisele Meya.

It is clear from this case that the period of tenancy is how the rent was last paid during the fixed term. In our case the rent has always been paid from the inception of the tenancy on a Monday to Sunday. Therefore we believe that our notice is valid as it expires on a Sunday.

Please Login

You must be logged in to participate in our forums, to continue please login below.

Not a member? From only £99 you can join in the discussion and get access to member's only resources and services.

As the home for landlords, the NRLA are here to help you save time, save money, and stay compliant. NRLA membership gives you access to a vast range of expertise, resources, and exclusive member benefits and savings, designed to help and empower members. We also play a pivotal role in campaigning and championing the interests of landlords.