Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
Loading Guild Resources
[Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/669.html) remains an important tenancy deposit case, but it now needs to be read in its proper place.
The case explains what happened when a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy ended and a statutory periodic tenancy arose under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988. It does not set the current Renters' Rights Act deposit rules. Those rules are now in section 215 of the Housing Act 2004, as substituted by section 26 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025.
For the current practical deposit rules, see our separate guide: Tenancy deposits under the Renters' Rights Act 2025.
The landlord granted a fixed-term tenancy on 8 January 2007 for one year less a day. The tenant paid a deposit of £606.66.
Tenancy deposit protection legislation came into force on 6 April 2007. Because the deposit had been received before that date, it did not need to be protected when it was first taken.
When the fixed term ended in January 2008, no new written agreement was signed. The tenant stayed in occupation under a statutory periodic tenancy created by section 5 of the Housing Act 1988. The landlord did not protect the deposit.
In June 2011, the landlord served a section 21 notice. The tenant defended the possession claim, arguing that the statutory periodic tenancy was a new tenancy and that the deposit should have been protected when that new tenancy arose.
There were two main questions:
The Court of Appeal answered yes to both. Lloyd LJ gave the main judgment, and Lewison and Gloster LJJ agreed.
On the first question, the court said the statutory periodic tenancy created by section 5 was a new and distinct tenancy:
... It is clear from the 1988 Act that what happens at the end of the fixed period tenancy is the creation of a new and distinct statutory tenancy, rather than, for example, the continuation of the tenant's previous status. I do not see that there can be any doubt as to that. ...
That is the part of Superstrike that still matters for historic fixed-term to statutory-periodic cases.
The court then held that, when the statutory periodic tenancy arose, the deposit was treated as being held for that new tenancy. In substance, the tenant was credited with the old deposit and immediately treated as paying an equivalent deposit for the new tenancy:
... the new tenancy contained an equivalent provision as to a deposit, in replacement for the provision under the express tenancy ... the tenant's right to be credited with the deposit at the end of the fixed period tenancy, as well as his obligation to pay, and the landlord's right to receive an equivalent deposit under the new statutory periodic tenancy, were treated as satisfied by the landlord continuing to hold the same sum of money as before on the same basis as before but by reference to the new tenancy.
The landlord argued that the Housing Act 2004 only applied where the money was physically received after 6 April 2007. The court rejected that argument:
... Something must have happened in January 2008 which led to the result that the deposit was held in relation to the new tenancy. That something could have been either an actual (or, as Mr Bhose put it, physical) payment (but none took place in this instance) or something which amounted to payment.
The section 21 notice failed because the deposit was not protected when the notice was served.
Superstrike caused understandable concern because many landlords had allowed older fixed-term tenancies to become statutory periodic without re-protecting the deposit or serving fresh prescribed information.
Parliament later softened some of the impact through the Deregulation Act 2015, particularly for many existing tenancy renewals and statutory periodic tenancies. That did not make deposit compliance optional, and it did not turn Superstrike into a general answer for every deposit case.
The bigger change is now the Renters' Rights Act 2025. Section 21 is no longer available for new notices. Possession of assured tenancies is now through section 8 and the statutory grounds for possession.
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 replaced section 215 of the Housing Act 2004. Deposit compliance is now a gateway to most possession orders, not just the old section 21 route.
Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may usually make a possession order only if one of the statutory routes is satisfied. In practical terms, that normally means checking that:
Late compliance can still remove the possession bar, provided the position is fixed before the court makes the possession order. Returning the deposit in full, or with agreed deductions, can also remove the bar. The same applies where a section 214 deposit claim has been determined, withdrawn or settled.
The deposit bar does not apply where the possession order is made only on Ground 7A or Ground 14, the anti-social behaviour grounds.
Financial penalties for late or non-compliance are separate. A landlord may be able to fix the possession problem late and still face a deposit penalty claim.
Yes, but mostly for historic facts and for understanding how statutory periodic tenancies were analysed before the Renters' Rights Act reforms.
Superstrike is still authority that, under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988, a statutory periodic tenancy arising after a fixed term is a new tenancy. It is also authority that a deposit already held can be treated as received again for that new tenancy.
Its practical effect has changed. The old problem was whether the landlord could serve a valid section 21 notice. The current problem is whether deposit compliance blocks a possession order under the new section 215 gateway.
For new tenancies created from 1 May 2026, fixed terms are not used for ordinary private rented sector assured tenancies. New tenancies are assured periodic tenancies from the start, so the old Superstrike fixed-term to statutory-periodic fact pattern should not arise for new lettings.
If a deposit was taken, check the deposit position before starting possession proceedings. Do not assume that section 21 ending has made deposit defects irrelevant. It has not. The issue has moved from section 21 validity to whether the court can make the possession order.
For the current checklist, use the separate guide: Tenancy deposits under the Renters' Rights Act 2025.