Uncategorized

Government “urgently exploring” Superstrike fallout, Prisk confirms to RLA

RLA
Written by RLA

The RLA has received confirmation from Mark Prisk that the Government is “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required” following the controversial Superstrike tenancy deposit court case. In a letter to RLA Chairman Alan Ward, Mr Prisk acknowledges the confusion within the private rented sector.

The RLA has received confirmation from Mark Prisk that the Government is “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required” following the controversial Superstrike tenancy deposit court case. In a letter to RLA Chairman Alan Ward, Mr Prisk acknowledges the confusion within the private rented sector.

The RLA had recently written to Mr. Prisk expressing its members’ concerns at the Court of Appeal ruling; and, in his reply, Mr. Prisk admits that the judgement goes against the “intention” of the original tenancy deposit legislation, and that the Government is, “…urgently exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation”. He then states, that whilst he is unable to comment on individual cases, “…as a precaution landlords could decide to re-issue the prescribed information to tenant(s) which should ensure they can rely on the section 21 procedure if they wish to end the tenancy.”

The minister’s reply to an early RLA letter, cuts through the hysteria that has been created by the judgement. With that in mind please read the letter, transcribed below from Mark Prisk MP, Minister of Housing addressed to RLA Chairman Alan Ward:

Dear Mr Ward

Thank you for your letter of 11 July about the recent Superstrike Ltd vs Rodrigues Court of Appeal decision.

I am aware that this ruling has implications in respect of the tenancy deposit protection (TDP) legislation and the operation of the tenancy deposit protection schemes. There are concerns that the Court of Appeal decision means that where a deposit was taken for an assured shorthold tenancy before the introduction of TDP and continued as a statutory periodic tenancy after 6 April 2007, the landlord should have protected the deposit at the start of the statutory periodic tenancy. This was not the intention of the legislation and we are urgently exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation.

I understand that concerns have also been raised that the decision could have implications for some tenancies where a deposit has been protected in an authorised scheme in relation to a tenancy begun after 6 April 2007 and the fixed term has expired, and the tenancy continues as a statutory periodic tenancy. While the Court of Appeal did not make a decision on these particular facts and we cannot advise on individual cases, as a precaution, landlords could decide to re-issue the prescribed information to their tenant(s) which should ensure they can rely on the section 21 procedure if they wish to end the tenancy. Again, we are exploring whether new legislation is required to clarify the situation.

Best Wishes,

Mark Prisk MP

 

The RLA prides itself in providing the best possible service to its members and this communication with Mr Prisk provides a level of reassurance missing from the private rented sector since the case was heard.

We will continue to monitor the situation and campaign for all UK landlords to ensure they are represented fairly in Government legislation.

Further Information

About the author

RLA

RLA

The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) represents the interests of landlords in the private rented sector (PRS) across England and Wales. With over 23,000 subscribing members, and an additional 16,000 registered guests who engage regularly with the association, we are the leading voice of private landlords. Combined, they manage almost half a million properties.

22 Comments

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.