The landlord’s agent did not place the tenant’s deposit with an authorised scheme or provide the appropriate notice within the 14 days required by the 2004 Act. T sought a penalty after it had been deposited. L said that the deposit penalty could no longer be ordered, and now appealed against on order that it was to be paid.
Held: L’s appeal succeeded. The penalty could not be ordered once the landlord had complied. The requirement that there be payment into the Scheme was the initial requirement of the Scheme, and not the requirement that that be done within 14 days. The time limit of 14 days is a requirement of section 213(3). That requirement is repeated in the scheme with others, but the fact that the time limit is repeated in the terms of the Scheme does not make it an initial requirement of the Scheme. There was in this case a breach of section 213 during the period in which the deposit was not lodged with the Scheme. The requirements applied to the Agent receiving the deposit as well as L.
It was not absurd to hold that L could avoid a penalty by making the deposit at any time before proceedings. Other restrictions continued to apply, including the suspension of L’s right to recover possession.
Tugendhat J
[2010] EWHC 217 (QB), [2010] 3 All ER 411, [2010] L and TR 12, [2010] NPC 18, [2010] HLR 27, [2011] 1 WLR 1606
Bailii
Housing Act 2004 214 215, Housing Act 1988 21
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – 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 – Potts v Densley and Another QBD 6-May-2011
potts_densleyQBD11
The claimant had been a shorthold tenant. The landlord had failed to secure the deposit as required, but offered to repay it after the determination of the tenancy. The claimant now appealed against a refusal of an award of three times the deposit. . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.401003
