If someone buys a property with tenants and then issues a new ast and they paid a deposit with previous landlord, does the deposit need re-protecting by the new landlord?
Question
Ending a Tenancy (England) | England | Landlord Wants Tenant to Leave (England)
Deposit not re-protected after purchase
Answer
View your previously asked questions. (Will only show questions from August 2020)
(Link above back to topic only works for questions added after end of August 2020)
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).