Court of Appeal

Ayannuga v Swindells (2012) CA (Civ) 6

Landlord had protected the deposit perfectly well but not issued “full” prescribed information (had provided some basic information but nothing more than that). This case decided that the prescribed information is strict and “all” the information (or substantially all) must be given to the tenant. Landlord ordered to pay tenant 3 x deposit plus return of deposit.

Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 604

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

Once tenancy has ended no application for 3 x deposit may be made by the ex-tenant.

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669

A landlord took a deposit in January 2007 (before tenancy deposit legislation). The tenancy went statutory periodic after the fixed term which was after tenancy deposit legislation took effect on 6 April 2007. As a result and because (according to the Court of Appeal) a statutory periodic tenancy is a brand new tenancy, the deposit had been received by the landlord again (although no physical money changed hands). As a result the deposit should have been protected. Because the deposit wasn’t protected (despite it being received before the legislation), the landlords section 21 was held to be invalid. The court suggested (but did not decide) that all deposits taken prior to April 2007 and still being held under tenancies might be affected by the legislation.

Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates) and between Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher [2010] EWCA Civ 1224 (11 November 2010).

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

Conjoined Court of Appeal case. As long as a landlord protects a deposit before any hearing in relation to the 3 x deposit compensation, the landlord will avoid that penalty. However, leaving it this late could incur some of the tenants costs in bringing the claim.

Other Courts

Baafi v Mapp Central London County Court 24 June 2010

The landlord had protected the deposit using Mydeposits. The landlord had only given to the tenant the certificate that is produced by Mydeposits after it has been secured. The landlord served a section 21 notice which the tenant defended on the basis that the landlord had failed to provide “all” the required prescribed information. On appeal it was held that as the landlord had only provided the certificate (which states on it that it is not all the prescribed information) then the service of the section 21 was not lawful as a section 21 may only be served when “all” prescribed information has first been given.

Bihari v House Trader (UK ) Limited. 14 January 2010, Central London County Court

A deposit was paid prior to tenancy deposit legislation. After April 2007 when the legislation came into force, the landlord and tenant renewed the tenancy. Deposit was required to be protected because of the renewal even though no money actually changed hands. Landlord ordered to pay deposit plus 3 x compensation.

Boyle v. Musso 25 October 2010 Bristol County Court

Deposit was never protected nor repaid therefore (quite sensibly) landlord ordered to pay 3 x deposit plus repayment.

Coutinho v Atkinson Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court 2009

HHJ Cryan indicated that as far as he is concerned a deposit taken for a tenancy which began prior to the intorduction of TDP on 6 April 2007 does not have to be protected but that when the tenancy is renewed the deposit is, in effect, taken again and must therefore be protected from that point.

Delicata v Sandberg, Central London County Court. 2 June 2009

Section 21 served same day as tenancy, therefore, before deposit was protected. Section 21 invalid because can’t be served at a time when the deposit is not protected

Draycott v Hennells 2010 (High Court so binding)

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

 

Hannells (agents acting on behalf of the landlord) were potentially liable for a failure to lodge a deposit it was found that their late lodging of that deposit with the DPS was not a breach of the Act or of the initial requirements of the DPS scheme and accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judgement against Hannells of the lower Court was set aside.

Therefore as things currently stand agents are liable for a failure to register the deposit, late registration does not automatically attract the penalties set out in section 214, and the DPS scheme has no initial requirement that the deposit be registered with it within 14 days of being received.

(approved by Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates) and between Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher [2010] EWCA Civ 1224)

 

Fergusen v Jones Birmingham County Court 5 Nov 2008

Overruled by Draycott v Hannells
Fox v Hill, Preston County Court, 21 January 2010, 9PR01873

Tenant issued a claim under section 214 Housing Act 2004 for payment of 3 x deposit on claim form N1 (normal small claims form). Civil Procedure Rule 56.1 requires a section 214 claim to be made using the part 8 procedure and so a different form. The tenants claim was dismissed because they had used the wrong form.

Francis v UK Housing Alliance (North West) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 117

A sale and rent back was entered into. 30% of the purchase price was held back and was payable after 10 years assuming the tenant was not in arrears and still in occupation. After a section 8 was served on the basis of rent arrears after 3 years of the tenancy, the tenant claimed the 30% held back was a deposit. Held: It was not a deposit for the purposes of tenancy deposit schemes.

Gemma Shepley v Majid Yassen, Tameside County Court, Thursday 13th January 2011 (Unreported).

Overruled by  Potts v Densley & Anor [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) below.

Green v Sinclair Investments Limited Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. 11 June 2010

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

The landlord returned the deposit in full to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Tenant claimed that initial requirements of scheme had not been complied with despite having the deposit returned in full. The tenants claim was dismissed because of the repayment. (Authors note: we don’t agree that this case was correctly decided and landlords are warned that simply repaying the deposit may not be a defence. See this article)

Harvey v Bamforth [2008] 46 EG 119 Sheffield County Court 8 August 2008

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

Deposit was protected on time but prescribed information provided after 14 days. As long as the prescribed information is given before an application by a tenant, the penalty of 3 x deposit does not apply.

Paula O’Brien v Jacqueline Jones & Andrew Alexander (T/A Belvoir Huntingdon) Northampton County Court 12 February 2010

Landlord put agents address in prescribed information and tenant argued should be landlords home address. Court held agents address sufficient. Landlord had failed to include certain clauses in the tenancy agreement as required by the initial requirements of the Dispute Service rules. Tenant argued that landlord had therefore failed to comply with initial requirements (s.213) and therefore 3 x deposit should be awarded.  Court agreed and held landlord had failed to comply with the schemes’ initial requirements and ordered repayment of deposit plus 3 x deposit penalty.

Piggott v Slaven, Great Grimsby County Court 23 February 2009

Landlord claimed the money he was holding was “rent in advance” and not a deposit. The court held it was being held to secure the obligation of paying the rent  at some future time and was therefore a deposit as defined by s.212(8) HA 2004.

[Authors note: It has been our long term opinion that any landlord attempting to avoid the legislation by calling money held “rent in advance” will fail.]

Potts v Densley & Anor [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB)

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

Landlord protected deposit 2 days “after” tenancy had ended. Tenant argued not possible to protect a deposit once a tenancy had ended. Held that a landlord can protect a deposit after a tenancy has ended and will avoid penalty if it has been been protected before the hearing as described in Tiensia.

Saad v Hogan Brentford County Court, 16 February 2009 (appeal heard in the County Court)

A deposit was paid prior to tenancy deposit legislation. After April 2007 when the legislation came into force, the landlord and tenant renewed the tenancy. Deposit was required to be protected because of the renewal even though no money actually changed hands. Landlord ordered to pay deposit plus 3 x compensation.

Seghier v Rollings, Bow County Court, 6 March 2009

Prescribed information NEVER given, therefore 3 x deposit plus repayment awarded. Harvey v Bamforth distinguished because in that case the prescribed information had been given albeit after 14 days.

Soens-Hughes v. Lewis 22 December 2010, West London County Court

Please note: for cases after 6 April / 6 May 2012 this can no longer be relied upon

Deposit was repaid to the tenant before a claim was made. Because there was no deposit to protect, it couldn’t then be protected after this time.

Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB)

Landlord only gave tenant deposit protection certificate provided by the deposit protection service after a deposit was protected. Held: This was NOT sufficient for the duty to supply prescribed information and in any event, the “landlord” (or agent) must give the prescribed information and it’s not possible for the schemes to give the information. It’s submitted this judgement will equally apply to all three schemes.

Walsh v Tomkins Crewe County Court 22 October 2008

The landlord sued the guarantor for outstanding rent. In a counterclaim, the guarantor claimed from the landlord three times deposit. The guarantor was neither the tenant, nor a relevant person and was unsuccessful in the counterclaim for those reasons

Woods v Harrington, Haverfordwest County Court. 19 May 2009

Overruled by Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates) and between Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher [2010] EWCA Civ 1224

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close