Deposit protection.

[Annie71]

Following on from the thread started by sequenci

My situation is as follows

Started AST feb 2003 as of august 2003 became a rolling periodic /monthly tenancy rent due in advance etc.

2011 I lost my job and claimed HB. Was able to keep the rent up to date for a while but gradually slipped into arrears as benefit paid 2 weekly in arrears and rent due monthly in advance. I was never more than 1 month behind.

Tried to explain to LL who then issued a S21 notice. After discussion agreed a rent increase of 70 pcm which brought it into line with LHA. It was agreed I would pay as soon as I got the benefit.

I offered to sign a new tenancy but was told no as then the deposit needed protecting.

Reading the other post there was the suggestion that even so my deposit should be protected .

is this right or are they ok to leave it unprotected?

I am concerned as another tenant of my LL did not receive any of their deposit back when moving.

[Lea_HTH]

The whole thing as to whether your deposit would need protecting would depend on a judge's decision on whether a new tenancy was created with the rent increase.

 

I would state that a new tenancy was created at that stage, and therefore your deposit had to be protected within 30 days.

 

That said, are you planning on leaving any time soon? Seems to me that having the same rent for 11 years is pretty good going, and now you want to punish your LL for raising it in the past year.

 

I'd have a legal argument whether I was defending or claiming possession for a case like this - so don't think it'll be a simple matter.

 

Far better to suggest to your LL that you would like him/her to protect the deposit on the basis that the rent has increased and you think that might imply a new tenancy. That way your deposit gets protected and if you decide to move you can claim it back - which is the whole point of the protection issue, and NOT gaining 1-3 times the amount as a bonus.

[speedfreek]

erm

[Lea_HTH]

I'm about to go through this so could I please ask...

 

What evidence on non protection did you offer?

 

I've looked at a screen prints of each deposit scheme which proves nowt tbf.

 

I have a receipt from the agency and agreement stating deposit paid etc so...

 

So do not want answers for my issues but what you got rejected on!

 

You do realise that your posts get emailed to everyone in the thread...don't you?

[Beatrice Bee]

In the Court of Appeal case of Friend's Provident Life Office v British Railways Board [1996] 1 All ER 336, the rent was changed and covenants relating to alterations were introduced, but no surrender and re-grant was held to have taken place. Indeed, the only lease variations which would give rise to a surrender and re-grant, according to all three of the judges, are "an increase in the extent of the premises demised or of the term for which they are to be held, both of which would change the legal estate". Beldam L.J. said "I can see no reason why [the parties] could not achieve the changes they desired in the terms of the lease without the law implied its surrender and a re-grant for the remainder of the term of the lease."

[Beatrice Bee]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/sdltm17080.htm

 

SDLTM17080 - Miscellaneous Provisions: Surrender and regrant of a lease

 

Surrender and re-grant may occur expressly, where the landlord grants a new lease to the tenant in place of the old one. However surrender and re-grant may also occur by operation of law. This is because the law deems some acts to be inconsistent with the continuation of the old lease and so deems there to be a new lease.

 

There will be a surrender and re-grant by operation of law where:

 

1. the term of the lease is extended (see SDLTM14090) (but not where a reversionary lease is granted to commence on expiry of the old lease: see SDLTM17070);
   
2. the area of the demised property is extended (but not where there is a new lease of separate property).
   

On the other hand there will not be a surrender and re-grant where:

 

1. there is a variation of the rent (upwards or downwards- refer to SDLTM15010 and SDLTM15020)
   
2. there is a reduction in the area of the demised property, whether this is effected by a surrender of part or by a Deed of Variation
   
3. another person is added as a tenant under an existing lease.
   

[Lea_HTH]

That case involved a third party and the binding of them to an agreement they were not party to. Which you would know had you read the actual case and not a website's dissemination of it.

 

So you've shown you can google, what you haven't shown is that you can discern what is relevant to a person's specific circumstances and what is not.

[speedfreek]

You do realise that your posts get emailed to everyone in the thread...don't you?

I do now! To think the psychiatrist I saw said I was a little paranoid? Hey ho!

[Annie71]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?415800-What-would-a-landlord-need-to-do-to-evict-someone-who-is-on-a-periodic-tenancy-once-their-AST-has-finished&p=4461964#post4461964

 

This is bizarre. I looked for my thread yesterday and it was nowhere to be seen.

It is not about punishing anyone it came about because of a thread that was started by sequenci linked above. In it was a ruling about an AST that started prior to deposit protection and became a periodic tenancy after.

 

My question was , in my case does the same ruling apply, I.e as each period passes does it effectively start a new tenancy. If this is the case the deposit should be protected.

 

I have no intention of moving and FYI where did I say there had been no rent increases during the time I was there.

 

I am not really sure where the other posts came from or what they have to do with my original post.

[Lea_HTH]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?415800-What-would-a-landlord-need-to-do-to-evict-someone-who-is-on-a-periodic-tenancy-once-their-AST-has-finished&p=4461964#post4461964

 

This is bizarre. I looked for my thread yesterday and it was nowhere to be seen.

It is not about punishing anyone it came about because of a thread that was started by sequenci linked above. In it was a ruling about an AST that started prior to deposit protection and became a periodic tenancy after.

 

My question was , in my case does the same ruling apply, I.e as each period passes does it effectively start a new tenancy. If this is the case the deposit should be protected.

 

You got an answer too. Though I see you are ungrateful for it. In which case PPO.

 

I have no intention of moving and FYI where did I say there had been no rent increases during the time I was there.

 

You specifically stated the rent was increased in line with LHA. If you have had other increases it makes no material difference to what I stated.

 

I am not really sure where the other posts came from or what they have to do with my original post.

 

They're not relevant - the poster thinks she's proving a point by showing her ability to google.

[raydetinu]

The deposit should be protected no question, a PST is effectively a new contract, it must be as the original has ended.

Any contract in existence after April 2012 must any deposit protected, or be liable to be sued for compensation.

[Annie71]

Lea are you always this rude or are you making a special effort today.

 

To address your points.

I have had an opinion from you and different opinions from others. What makes yours the one I should accept

Yes I did specifically state that the rent was increased to bring it in line with the LHA. You told me I was being ungrateful because I hadnt had a rent increase in 11 years. I wascpointing out you were wrong to assume that.

All I did was comment that yesterday my post did not appear on the boards at all then now it is here with posts that seem odd. For example your quote of speedfreak which seems completely out of place.

 

May I ask you to wind your neck in and not be so rude.