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: The appeal succeeded, and the landlord was orderd to pay the sum at three times the amount of the deposit. The judge had wrongly concluded that the tenancy had been validly ended and that Tiensia applied to disapply the claim.
Cox J considered compliance with the requirements under the 2004 Act in a notice: ‘Although the primary focus in the cases involving these statutory provisions has so far been on the deposit, it is clear that a landlord’s obligations under this part of the 2004 Act are twofold. Parliament regards the landlord’s obligation to provide the prescribed information as being of equal importance to his duty to safeguard the tenant’s deposit. Judges who have to determine the extent of a landlord’s compliance with these provisions will always need to consider whether the prescribed information has been supplied to the tenant, in addition to the question of protection of the deposit. The list of particulars to be provided is detailed and specific. The requirement for landlords to provide such detailed information, together with the sanction for non-compliance, demonstrate the importance attached to the giving of particulars, certified as accurate by the landlord, which will enable tenants to understand how the scheme works and how they may seek the return of their deposit.’


Cox J


[2011] EWHC 2003 (QB), [2012] 1 WLR 1224, [2011] 32 EG 55, [2011] 39 EG 110, [2011] 3 EGLR 19, [2012] LandTR 11




Housing Act 2004 213 214, Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed information) Order 2007


England and Wales


CitedDraycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents) QBD 12-Feb-2010
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 . .
CitedTiensia 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 . .
ApprovedPotts v Densley and Another QBD 6-May-2011
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. . .
CitedGladehurst 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 by:

CitedAyannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442462