To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
5 Comments
Yes. The new tenancy with a new landlord triggers deposit protection.
It’s not needed with a normal renewal where it’s same landlord, property and tenant but here the landlord is different.
Juts to clarify, the deposit was protected in agents name, and not the previous LL, woud Nnb have had to be re-protected still when the new owner became LL and re-protected with same agent ? Or could it simply just stay protected ?
sorry i didnt get a response
Just to clarify, the deposit was initially protected in agents name, and not the previous LL, and is still protected by the agent, would have had to be re-protected still when the new owner became LL and re-protected with same agent ? Or could it simply just stay protected ?
Hello I’m not sure if my messages are coming through?
Don’t think this precise point has been tested but if the deposit is in agents name and new landlord is now using that same agent, we can’t see that any change is needed. If it were re-protected, it would hold exactly the same information (agent name, tenant name and property). Therefore, on balance we believe this is okay and nothing needed.
Of course, a new protection could be done for the new landlord to be ultra safe but as say it sounds okay to do nothing (we believe).