The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the tenancy agreement.
Held: The tenant’s appeal was allowed. The judge had reached a conclusion quite outside a proper exercise of judgment and evaluation.
Etherton LJ said: ‘It is no answer for the respondent to assert that the information could have been obtained by the appellant making her own enquiries by means of the internet or telephoning the respondent’s agent or the scheme’s administrator or in some other way. Section 213(5) of the 2004 Act requires the information to be provided by the landlord.’ and ‘it is doubtful whether the distinction between . . mere procedural provisions and other provisions is justified in a case where the legislation has prescribed all the different categories of information which are required to be provided in order to comply with the statutory obligation . .’
Etherton, Lewison LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1789
Housing Act 2004 8213, Localism Act 2011, Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007
England and Wales
Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .
Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .
Cited – Suurpere v Nice and Another QBD 27-Jul-2011
The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: . .
Cited – Tegerdine v Brooks CA 1977
The court was asked as to the validity of a section 24 notice. In his notice the landlord had stated that he would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy. The tenant failed to serve a counter-notice but then contended that the section 24 notice was . .
Cited – Kahlon v Isherwood CA 19-May-2011
Tenant’s appeal against order for possession. The question arose wheher a noice remained defective even where the information omitted was known to the tenant. Patten LJ said: ‘Relevance or materiality has to be assessed by reference to the purpose . .
Cited – Manel and Others v Memon CA 20-Apr-2000
A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.470111