Global menu

Our global pages


Protecting tenancy deposits

    • Real estate dispute resolution
    • Real estate litigation


    Superstrike Limited v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669

    This recent Court of Appeal decision relates to an assured shorthold tenancy created in early 2007 before the introduction of the mandatory tenancy deposit protection rules. When the tenancy expired in 2008, a statutory periodic tenancy then arose under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988; the deposit remained unprotected. A notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 was served to end the tenancy in 2011.

    The Court of Appeal has ruled that when the new statutory periodic tenancy arose in 2008, a new deposit was deemed to have been received. This was subject to the requirements of the tenancy deposit protection legislation.

    As the landlord had not met the requirements to protect the deposit and serve the prescribed information, it was unable to serve a section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy, and the purported notice served in 2011 was invalid.

    The Deposit Protection Service has provided guidance as to the implications of this ruling until further cases are decided. The recommended approach is that in order to ensure full compliance landlords should serve prescribed information within 30 days of each renewal or the creation of a statutory periodic tenancy. It is worth remembering that tenants could claim the statutory penalty for non-service of the prescribed information, or for late service where applicable; potentially a payment by the landlord of three times the amount of the deposit.

    For more information contact

    < Go back

    Print Friendly and PDF
    Subscribe to e-briefings