Guidance from tenancy deposit protection schemes following the Superstrike Ltd. vs Rodrigues Court of Appeal case

Guidance from tenancy deposit protection schemes following the Superstrike Ltd. vs Rodrigues Court of Appeal case

19:35 PM, 31st July 2013, About 8 years ago 26

Text Size

The four tenancy deposit protection scheme providers have collectively issued guidance notes following the Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Superstrike Limited vs Rodrigues. Guidance from deposit protection schemes following the Supertrike Case

Landlords and Letting Agents should note that none of the tenancy deposit schemes can offer legal advice to landlords or lettings agents.

Their guidance is not intended to give legal advice and cannot be relied on as such. If you have concerns you should get your own legal advice based on your own individual circumstances. However they set out their shared understanding of the position and the options they think are available to landlords and lettings agents in the future.

The guidance notes, which are available to download free by completing the form below this article, have been jointly produced by the authorised tenancy deposit schemes:

• my|deposits
• Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS)
• Deposit Protection Service (DPS)
• Capita

The Department for Communities and Local Government has met with the tenancy deposit schemes and has received a copy of these guidance notes.

Please download, have a read and then come back here and leave a comment.

You can be pretty sure the Deposit Protection providers will be reading comments left on this forum so don’t miss the opportunity to have your say.

Download the guidance notes here



by Gary Nock

14:11 PM, 3rd August 2013, About 8 years ago

Our situation is complicated by the fact we used to use Mydeposits until all this lot broke. Fearing that tenancies would need to be reprotected at £18 a time we switched to DPS as its free. But all tenancies up until May were insured rather than custodial and if we had to reprotect would cost a few hundred pounds.

by Anthony Altman

0:37 AM, 4th August 2013, About 8 years ago

well as usual the government were too arrogant to listen to the advice of the people who do lettings for a living
so they and their regulators drafted tenancy deposit regulations so incompetently that they were open to different interpretation by every judge that looked at them
as usual it will be the hapless victims who will be punished for the governments ineptitude
they willl trot out their standard platitudes " Lessons have been learned"
and the lesson that has been learned by the government today is!
no matter how incompetent and negligent we have been we will never be held to account
dont you just love british justice!?

by Anon 44

11:25 AM, 8th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "03/08/2013 - 14:11":
So I now have another question after days and days spent trying to get to the bottom of the best way to move forward.....Agreed we now need to reissue PI on all existing periodic tenancies in the wake of Superstrike. We will also get the LL to sign the PIs before we get the tenant to sign.
Now I'm also concerned whether increasing the rent on a periodic tenancy also triggers the need to re-serve PI? Residential Lettings Association states that a rent increase is also a change to T&C's of the AST thus the deposit needs re-protection. All our deposits are with the DPS and their FAQ confirm that the deposit remains protected until both parties agree to take it out. But what about the PI? Please help someone as this is becoming a minefield.
Mark if there is no-one to answer on this thread please could you direct me to the appropriate thread. Many thanks

by Romain Garcin

14:30 PM, 9th August 2013, About 8 years ago

"Residential Lettings Association states that a rent increase is also a change to T&C’s of the AST thus the deposit needs re-protection"

There is no basis for that claim.
Deposit protection and giving PI is required when a new tenancy is created. If rent is increased e.g. through s.13 then no action is required.

by Anon 44

14:42 PM, 9th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "09/08/2013 - 14:30":
Thank you so much for your reply. I thought the same but when I read it on the RLA it totally went against what I had understood previously.

by Mary Latham

16:51 PM, 15th August 2013, About 8 years ago

Government “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify (the Superstrike) situation.”

Mark Prisk MP suggests that landlords could take precautions and reissue the prescribed information

You may have read our recent blog and information pages on the implications of the recent Superstrike Ltd vs Rodrigues tenancy deposit dispute Court of Appeal ruling. If you are not familiar with the case then please click here for more information.

In light of the confusion, concern, and indeed, large sums of money at stake as a result of this ruling, the NLA wrote to Mark Prisk MP, Minister for Housing, calling for clarity on the situation.

On the 30th July we received the following response here

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is here >>>

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?