Superstrike Ltd vs Rodrigues Tenancy Deposit Protection Court of Appeal

Just as i said at 10.45 this morning and few other comments shortly after!!

Mark, this cannot be a Supreme Court ruling. The judgement handed down only a few days ago was from the Court of Appeal. It would have been appealed to High Court from County Court and then to Court of Appeal probably. If it had been Supreme Court it would have said so and there would have been considerably more judges ruling on the matter, usually at least 5, unlike the 3. It takes months, if not years to appeal up to the Supreme Court so there is no way that something heard in the Court of Appeal last month could have made it that far. Your source is can only be mistaken.

I don't think you really understand how case law works. Just because a judgement like this has been issued that does not mean it now has blanket application. For a case to be binding on another the material facts must be the same. It won't be enough for someone just to say this is a dispute regarding tenancy deposits therefore this case is authority. A claimant's solicitor would have to demonstrate to the court what the precise ratio in this case was and how it applies. It could well be argued that the ratio here should be interpreted narrowly and that it only applies to tenancies that came into being before the new legislation came into effect in 2008, which means it has limited applicability, or they could construe it widely and say that it does apply to all periodic tenancies. Until someone actually tries to apply this no one will know so it is pointless trying to conjecture how it may or may not apply, and as it is Court of Appeal, it can still be appealed upwards, assuming that the parties involved have the resources to do so. Parliament could also legislate to correct this if they feel that it has gone beyond the bounds of the original legislation on deposits. There are so many possible outcomes from this case that panicking unnecessarily and suggesting that countless landlords could face bankruptcy is simply reckless.

Hi Jonathan, exactly what i said at 10.45 just more elequant and factual!

I don't think you'll find any factual errors in my post Andy but I am happy to be corrected. I am a lawyer, unlike most people posting on here.

I am not a lawyer like yourself just a landlord but I think Andy was trying to tell you that you have put it in a more eloquent and factual way.

@Jonathan - why not get yourself a Member Profile so that we can learn more about you? Please see >>> http://www.property118.com/membership/40048/

It was a compliment Jonathan thats a fact!

Thanks Jan x

As a general rule, laws cannot be applied retrospectively (although Gordon Brown did make history). So not too sure what you are saying about going back 6 years.

Advices on forums like this are unlikely to be enforceable because we do not have a contractual or professional relationship hence no duty of care.

Not sure where you are coming from about not being able to issue S21 notice though.

Be +ve folks. If this ruling does become law, all you have to do is to stick a clause in your AST to charge the tenant for the pleasure of compliance. Another case of unintended consequence ? Businesses have to make money to survive. If the tenants dont like it, they can come onto the LL side and together we will scream at the politicians and the judges.

I think the widespread panic may be a little premature here, to say the least. You cannot take a decision in one set of circumstances and automatically apply it to others unless all the facts match.

[Note I have been drafting this for some time in between appointments so by now some of my points may hopefully have picked up by others.]

First of all, the decision relates to a case where the original tenancy started before 6 April 2007. The ruling is that as the periodic tenancy came into place after 6 April 2007 that was a new tenancy and created the obligation to protect the deposit.

Now that is a bit of a bombshell, but we must be talking about a relatively small number of tenancies.

In most cases now the tenancy will have stared after 6 April 2007. Assuming you entered into a new tenancy after 6 April 2007 and complied with the requirements (under the old 14 day rule, the new 30 day rule or the catch up window of opportunity to 6 April 2012) I think the position is a little different.

Why the difference? Well, where you have complied with one version of the legislation if a Court of Appeal judge has decided that there is a notional transfer of the deposit to a new agreement I would seek to argue that I complied six months before I received this new deposit. Read section 213:

213(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.

213(3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of [14] days beginning with the date on which it is received.

213(4) For the purposes of this section "the initial requirements" of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.

Well, as far as I am concerned, I have dealt with the law by complying with my scheme's requirements, to the letter with two certificates and the secondary information.

Ironically, the changes introduced by the Localism Act 2011 may have worked in a landlord's favour. Any landlord who entered into a new tenancy after 6 April 2007 that went periodic before 6 April 2012 and was prompted to "catch up" with their paperwork and procedures before this date may well now be protected against Superstike v Rodrigues.

I cannot help but make one observation. All my non-student agreements are for the standard fixed term of six to seven months but contain a provision to the effect that if neither side gives notice the tenancy shall continue (on a periodic basis, but this phrase is not used) until one side gives legal notice. At the moment, I would strongly argue that this is one tenancy agreement. I am feeling slightly smug but not over confident!

I Tweeted the Deposit Protection Providers last night. They are calling emergency meetings. See their response below and read their interim press statement. Now tell me there is no need to worry!

@iamalandlord Hi, here is our official statement with further updates to follow - http://t.co/Wq6zylFIdm

— TDS (@TenancyDeposits) June 17, 2013