Cookies must be enabled for this site to function properly

Topics / Deposits 

start a new discussion

Section 21 - incorrect prescribed information

0 helpful votes
This is the number of people who have indicated that they have found this discussion useful.
45 views 2 replies latest reply: 21 November 2016
Photo
Tenant

In 2010 I separated from my wife and when the ‘joint’ AST we had together came up for renewal  I remained in the property with a new ‘sole’ AST agreement.

I have recently been served with a Section 21 and I now realise that the deposit protection certificate ( prescribed information ) I have from My Deposits is for the previous ‘joint’ tenancy – I have checked their online deposit checker and my ex wife’s name is still registered under the deposit. It appears my landlord or his agent failed to reprotect the deposit for the new ‘sole’ tenancy. On my AST agreements – renewed each year – it says a deposit has been taken but I have never received correct prescribed information to confirm this – all the certificates I have relate to the previous joint tenancy – m ex wife’s name is on all of them as the other tenant. My tenancy has now lapsed into a SPT.

Can he serve me with a Section 21 and can I make a claim against him ?

Photo
Tenant

Since the joint tenancy ended and a new sole tenancy was formed, the deposit should have been taken out of My Deposits and then protected again under your name only, with a new, refreshed copy of the prescribed information served to you again.

This means that your deposit (since you’ve begun a single tenancy) is not properly protected. By law, this would rule that you can’t be served with a Section 21 notice.

As you suspect, it’s likely that any Section 21 notice served to you may be invalidated by this fact. However, it’s important to consult a real solicitor if this is the case. Citizen Advice or Shelter will be able to confirm that fact. 

Photo
Tenant

Thank you.

As the prescribed information does not match my sole tenancy I am hoping it’s enough to invalidate the Section 21. 

Can he be penalised for not reprotecting the deposit correctly?

Showing 1 - 2 of 2 Comments
start a new discussion

Post a reply