An order for possession has been set aside by a court on the basis that the Prescribed Information did not contain the landlord’s name and address.
Instead, it showed the agent’s name and address as the holder of the deposit.
The deposit itself was protected by the TDS, which has always advised that either the landlord’s name or that of the agent can be used in the Prescribed Information.
The Prescribed Information itself was served to the tenant within the correct 30-day limit. However, after possession of the property was sought and given, the tenant appealed – and was successful.
Another tenancy deposit case that’s doing the rounds but this time County Court. It’s a little unclear from the linked article what’s actually taken place but it seems possession has been set aside rather than actually refused.
Assuming possession has been set aside, then there will be a trial at some point to decide whether possession should be ordered or not.
From what the article is stating, it seems the agents name and address was on the prescribed information and the tenant has successfully argued (for the time being) that it should have been the landlords name and address.
It is respectfully submitted this is unlikely to be found correct assuming there is a trial at some point in the near future. Section 212(9)(a) Housing Act 2004 provides:
(9) In this Chapter—
(a)references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies, …
As references to landlords are references to landlords agents, it is submitted where there is a letting agent in respect of the tenancy, the agents name and address on the prescribed information is perfectly acceptable.
Source: Letting agent today