Comments on: Tenancy deposits – s21 notice served before deposit paid is valid http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/01/14/tenancy-deposits-s21-notice-served-before-deposit-paid-is-valid/ From landlord and tenant solicitor Tessa Shepperson Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:08:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: chris http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/01/14/tenancy-deposits-s21-notice-served-before-deposit-paid-is-valid/comment-page-1/#comment-883 chris Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:57:29 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=1694#comment-883 and one assumes that the local authority were provided with the prescribed information as well as the tenant - not that it would have made any difference in this case but its a small point that is often missed :) and one assumes that the local authority were provided with the prescribed information as well as the tenant – not that it would have made any difference in this case but its a small point that is often missed :)

]]> By: Tessa Shepperson http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/01/14/tenancy-deposits-s21-notice-served-before-deposit-paid-is-valid/comment-page-1/#comment-879 Tessa Shepperson Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:05:43 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=1694#comment-879 Yes, I suppose that is right. It goes to show that when drafting proceedings for possession these potential misunderstandings should be made clear in the paperwork. Apparently the deposit was paid by the local authority, so this must be why the landlord let the tenant in before it had arrived. Yes, I suppose that is right. It goes to show that when drafting proceedings for possession these potential misunderstandings should be made clear in the paperwork.

Apparently the deposit was paid by the local authority, so this must be why the landlord let the tenant in before it had arrived.

]]> By: Chris http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/01/14/tenancy-deposits-s21-notice-served-before-deposit-paid-is-valid/comment-page-1/#comment-878 Chris Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:57:43 +0000 http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=1694#comment-878 To be fair to the judge the possession claim would not necessarily have stated when the deposit was actually paid, only when it was protected from. For a DJ doing the paperwork this would have appeared a perfectly proper course of action at first look - in fact, credit is due for correcting the error when made aware of the facts. Seems a little odd that the landlord would allow a tenant to take possession of the property without taking the deposit first don't you think ? To be fair to the judge the possession claim would not necessarily have stated when the deposit was actually paid, only when it was protected from. For a DJ doing the paperwork this would have appeared a perfectly proper course of action at first look – in fact, credit is due for correcting the error when made aware of the facts.
Seems a little odd that the landlord would allow a tenant to take possession of the property without taking the deposit first don’t you think ?

]]>