The Defendant took an assured shorthold tenancy of premises from the Claimant for a fixed term of one year less one day, paying a deposit of a month’s rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement at that time. At the expiry of the fixed term, by the effect of section 5 of the 1988 Act, he held under a statutory periodic tenancy on the equivalent terms. The Claimant served a notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act requiring possession. The issue was whether it was entitled to do so, notwithstanding that the deposit, which remained outstanding, had not been protected by being dealt with in accordance with a scheme authorised under the 2004 Act.
Held: Where a deposit had been paid under a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy beginning before, but expiring aftersection 213 of the 2004 Act came into effect, the landlord had become obliged to secure the deposit under an authorised scheme within 14 days as the statutory periodic tenancies began; and section 215(1) of the 2004 Act, provided that a failure to do so left the landlord incapable of serving a valid notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act: ‘once the fixed term tenancy had expired, the tenant remaining in possession, the landlord had to make arrangements for the deposit to be held in accordance with an authorised scheme if he wished to be in a position to serve a section 21 notice. That is the policy of the 2004 Act and I do not find persuasive Mr Bhose’s argument that the requirement should not be imposed in these circumstances, or that it should be seen as unnecessary or pointless. I am willing to accept that the need to comply may not have been foreseen. Unfortunately, several points under this legislation turned out not to be as may have been expected or intended. The imposition of this requirement in these circumstances does not seem to me in any way anomalous, futile or pointless. To the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the policy and aim of the relevant provisions. ‘
Lloyd, Lewison, Gloster LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 669, [2013] HLR 42, [2013] 2 EGLR 91, [2013] L andTR 33, [2013] WLR(D) 235, [2013] 1 WLR 3848
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 2004 213, Housing Act 1988 5 21
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Elmdene Ltd v White HL 1-Feb-1960
The landlord’s appeal failed. A payment can include a payment in kind. . .
Cited – White v Elmdene Estates Ltd CA 1960
The relative legislation prohibited the requirement of ‘payment of any premium’ on the grant, renewal or continuance of any tenancy. Mr and Mrs White owned and lived in a house, but it was subject to a mortgage which was in arrears, and they decided . .
Cited – N and D (London) Ltd v Gadson 1991
What happens at the end of the fixed period tenancy is the creation of a new and distinct statutory tenancy, rather than, for example, the continuation of the tenant’s previous status. . .
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 – Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another CA 19-May-2011
Gladehurst had let the property to the two tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They paid a deposit, which it retained and never paid into the deposit scheme. The tenancy came to an end when the tenants vacated the property, after which . .
Cited – Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark HL 10-Jun-2009
The claimant sought a discount on the purchase of his flat from the appellant. The discount was to be increased because of the authority’s delay in responding to his application. The respondent now appealed against a finding that it must repay the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510867
