×

Contact us today

Please enter your first name.
Please enter your surname.
Please enter your telephone number.
Please enter a valid email address.
Please provide some details about your enquiry.
 

A reminder to landlords regarding deposits, issuing Prescribed Information, Superstrike and a recent case in Birmingham

The tenant served a counter-claim, arguing that no prescribed information had been served when the tenancy became statutory periodic. The landlord tried to rely on the originally served prescribed information, but the court rejected this argument.

Hopefully Landlords are aware of the Superstrike v Rodriguez case, which ruled that when a fixed term tenancy ends and the tenant remains on a statutory periodic tenancy, then a new tenancy is created and therefore the Tenancy Deposit Prescribed Information must be reissued. If this is not issued then the landlord falls foul of the deposit rules and cannot serve a Section 21 notice, can be forced to return the deposit and be fined up to 3 times the deposit.

A recent case in Birmingham (Gardner v McClusker) has reinforced this and cost the landlord £1,800 plus costs

The landlord had taken a £600 deposit and protected it (with MyDeposits) but not served the prescribed information when the tenancy became statutory period, and had then served a Section 21 notice.

The tenant served a counter-claim, arguing that no prescribed information had been served when the tenancy became statutory periodic. The landlord tried to rely on the originally served prescribed information, but the court rejected this argument.

The court ruled that the Section 21 notice was invalid. It ordered that the deposit be returned to the tenant and damages of twice the value of the deposit be paid to the tenant.

Back to the blog

Related Posts