The deposit has been protected within 30 days, but, although not detailed as such upon the Tenancy Deposit Certificate, which shows agent details, on the DPS system the landlord is detailed as an individual when in actual fact the landlord is a limited company, albeit effectively of the individual. Is this likely to invalidate the protection and mean that the only way to use Section 21 will be to pay the deposit back first? Similarly, if not an issue, the prescribed information also details the incorrect landlord as above and is incomplete, such as failing to detail when the deposit or part can be retained. Would this invalidate that?
Question
Deposits and Tenancy Deposit Schemes (England) | England | Start of a Tenancy (England)
Deposit Protection & Prescribed Information
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)
1 Comment
We’re not too concerned with the name on the DPS system. Not sure if that can be edited mid-through? If not, don’t think we’d worry about that. On presentation of the certificate, nobody will know unless some major research is done. Hopefully (but not guaranteed) that should work out even if a section 21 is ever needed.
The deposit prescribed information perhaps should be corrected, especially with the other parts missing.
We would therefore send them again with the correct information inserted. Since 2015, the prescribed information can contain either landlord or agent details – it no longer matters – so it might be useful to match it up with the certificate and use the agent details. Either way, it’s also okay to put the correct landlords details, if preferred.
When sending the new prescribed information, it could just be referred to as “updated” information, so nobody is actually saying the first one was wrong – just that these are updated.
Even if the first one was wrong, prescribed information can be sent late (after 30 days) which allows a section 21 to be served, so there’s no problem there. Technically, a penalty could be payable if the tenant applied for one and the first information was found to be incomplete. In our view this is highly unlikely to happen though from what’s described.