Superstrike: RLA amendments

Written by RLA

The Superstrike saga is drawing to a close. That’s the view of RLA Policy Director Richard Jones after proposals from the RLA have been considered by Government. The RLA has been heavily involved with conversations regarding the Superstrike Court of Appeal case and its consequences. Phillip Davies, MP, put an amendment forward to the Deregulation Bill drafted by Richard Jones…

The Superstrike saga is drawing to a close. That’s the view of RLA Policy Director Richard Jones after proposals from the RLA have been accepted by Government. The RLA has been heavily involved with conversations regarding the Superstrike Court of Appeal decision and its consequences. Richard Jones presented amendments to  Phillip Davies, MP, who tabled the proposals which were ultimately accepted.

Essentially, without the RLA landlords would not have had this break from Government.

Subsequently the Government tabled an amendment which, in effect, accepted the RLA’s draft proposals which had been drawn up in consultation with other interested organisations.

Last May ‘Superstrike’ rocked the private rented sector (PRS) and brought tenancy deposits into public focus. At the time the RLA worked with other landlord groups and letting agents to ensure that outcomes were fair for all.

Housing Minister at the time, Mark Prisk wrote the RLA saying Government were “urgently exploring” Superstrike fallout.

The DCLG have proved true to Mark Prisk’s words and the RLA are pleased with the rationale and outcome of the process of engagement and acceptance of the amendments. The RLA is pleased with the amendment now put forward by the Government to rectify the situation.

It specifically addresses the situation when a fixed term tenancy becomes statutory periodic. Following the Superstrike case, landlords have been advised to re-serve the prescribed information.

The amendment will make that no longer necessary. The amendment also clarifies what happens to tenancy deposits taken before April 6, 2007, when it became a requirement for all deposits to be protected by a recognised scheme.

Within three months of this amendment to the Deregulation Act 2014 becoming law, all deposits that have been taken must be protected, and the prescribed information served.

The amendment to the Deregulation Bill, likely to receive Royal Assent this summer, can be read here.

For the time being, landlords are reminded that for now, they should continue to re-serve the prescribed information when the tenancy becomes statutory periodic.

Further Information



About the author



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.


  • Really?
    Can someone write some less biassed news please?
    The first five of the thirteen paragraphs in this ‘article’ are explaining simply that the RLA is great. Not until paragraph six is any actual worthwhile comment reported.
    I am already an RLA member. You would think I have already bought into how great you are.
    It would have been enough to start with paragraphs six to thirteen, and have one line at the end that said ‘Aren’t the RLA great?’. Everyone would have agreed that it was so and smiled, rather than hating the sycophantic article.
    Thanks : )

  • Hi Ed.

    Thanks for the comment, and always great to hear that members are readers and vice versa!

    There is a lot of legal and technical explanation around this topic online but none really mentioned the fact that Richard Jones – RLA Policy Director, in case you were wondering! ; ) – was the person that wrote the amendments.We felt that this was an important aspect of what the RLA is doing for its members and the wider PRS public.

    I hope this explains the ‘bias’ in the article and that future content can be more to the point, assuming they who deserve credit receive it!

    Thanks again Ed, keep reading.


    RLA Campaigns

  • No matter what this amendment achieves, we will remain stuck with very poorly drafted inadequate legislation.

    For example, assume you had a tenancy for the year 2013 with a deposit of £1,000. On 1 November 2013 you signed a new agreement with the same tenant for 2014 with the deposit rolling over. When do you “receive” the £1,000 deposit for the second tenancy?
    Another example. A tenant signs an agreement on 1 February for a tenancy starting on 1 July and pays £200 deposit. On 1 July they pay the £300 deposit balance and move in. When do you protect the deposit and how much? (This is realistic with student tenancies.)

    No doubt people will have their various views, but I defy any person to argue that the legislation is quite clear on either point.

    For what it is worth, in the absence of any useful advice from my scheme provider I would protect the second £1,000 with reference to the 1 November date and the full £500 with reference to the 1 February date. There is nothing I can find in the legislation that states protecting a deposit is acknowledgement the deposit has actually been paid.

    All I have to do then is explain each year why the balance on my client account is less than the value of deposits protected. This is accepted without question as the scheme provider has no answer.

  • I dont quite understand why the prescribed information has to be the landlords responsibilty as I am sure tenants now have the means to read the above on their mobile smart phone ,laptop or other means available to them. We protect tenants deposits and this information has all the relevant contact details as to aquire any further information they may need. Why are tenants treat like they are idiots,I’m sure they are quite aware from numerous sources as to their rights on any thing imaginable.

Leave a Comment

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