The RLA review the case: "In a nutshell, the case concerned a tenancy which commenced before tenancy deposit protection became mandatory. The landlord took a deposit but did not protect it, breaking no law because this not required."
The RLA claims "The ruling has implications for landlords with tenancies that began before tenancy deposit protection became the law, and also for all landlords with tenancies that began as fixed and became statutory periodic. Landlords must bear in mind that, whether or not they use a letting agent who arranges deposit protection, it is they and not the agent who bears the ultimate legal responsibility.
The RLA working with other housing associations and rent deposit scheme providers have collaborated on new guidance.
RLA and Partners Key Guidance Notes
The advice from the deposit scheme providers is as such: "The tenancy deposit schemes now advise landlords (or their agents) to re-serve the Prescribed Information whenever, and within 30 days, of each tenancy renewal or the creation of a statutory periodic tenancy, wherever the deposit is currently protected."
The RLA's own advice is "that other options do exist for landlords, including returning the deposit, and these are in the advice issued by the RLA and other stakeholders. There could also be a strong argument for avoiding statutory periodic tenancies altogether, and creating new fixed-term tenancies instead."
However, the RLA argue that one option remains; "Do nothing. Rely on the fact that the Prescribed Information was served when the deposit was first received."
