← Back to News
Housing minister Prisk urgently exploring new legislation post-Superstrike
The Government is “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required” following the Superstrike case.
Housing minister Mark Prisk has made the revelation in a letter to the Residential Landlords Association.
In his letter, Prisk says 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”.
The letter, to RLA chairman Alan Ward, says: “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 Government is “urgently exploring whether new legislation is required” following the Superstrike case.
Housing minister Mark Prisk has made the revelation in a letter to the Residential Landlords Association.
In his letter, Prisk says 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”.
The letter, to RLA chairman Alan Ward, says: “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.” 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.”
