Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) This is a significant High Court (so binding) case which highlights what we have been banging on about for several years now namely, the importance of the prescribed information. As we often say, 90% of landlords are protecting deposits (not an official statistic, for illustration purposes only) and 89% are NOT giving the prescribed information either in full or properly. Background Mr and Mrs...

Only subscribers may ask a question. Please login or signup to ask a question

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon   Potts v Densley & Anor [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) Thanks again to the Painsmith blog for this one. Background The landlord granted the tenant a tenancy of 12 months from 12 May 2007. A deposit of £1,500.00 was paid and duly registered by the landlords managing agent with the tenancy deposit scheme (Dispute Service). In 2009, the landlord and tenant agreed...

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon   Nearly Legal have reported an interesting new tenancy deposit case Gemma Shepley v Majid Yassen, Tameside County Court, Thursday 13th January 2011 (Unreported). As a brief summary of this case, the landlord granted a 12 month assured shorthold tenancy late 2007 and a further renewal was granted for another 12 months. The tenancy then ran periodic until the...

This entry is part 7 of 9 in the series Protect / Unprotect a DepositAll three schemes require some form of “lead tenant” agreement. What is a “lead tenant” you may ask? Basically, the schemes don’t want to get involved with tittle tattle between joint tenants as to who should receive what portion. Therefore, a lead tenant must be nominated by all tenants and the others must all agree to the nomination. The landlord...