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 compliance, and whether the TDS scheme’s own conditions were part of the requirement.
Held: (Sedley LJ dissenting) Where a tenant claims or, more usually, counterclaims for a breach of these statutory provisions, the landlord has until the date of the hearing to comply with his dual obligations of safeguarding the tenant’s deposit and providing the requisite information in the prescribed form.
Rimer LJ said: ‘the natural interpretation of the phrase ‘the initial requirements’ as used in section 213(3) and (4) is that it does not include any requirement imposed by a particular scheme as to the time within which the landlord must secure the deposit. The quoted phrase must mean the same in both sub-sections and since section 213(3) itself imposes a time limit within which ‘the initial requirements’ must be complied with, it is necessarily implicit in the sub-section that it cannot be recognising that one such requirement is the (perhaps different) time limit for securing the deposit that may be imposed by a particular scheme.’
Further: ‘ the pre-condition of a tenant’s application to the court under section 214 is not a failure by the landlord to comply with the ‘initial requirements’ or the notification thereof to the tenant within the 14-day period specified in section 213. It is the failure to comply with either of those obligations at all. It follows in my judgment that if, therefore, the landlord is late in complying with his dual section 213 obligations, but he nevertheless duly does so before any section 214 proceedings are brought by the tenant, the tenant will have no cause of action under section 214.’ The penalty would not be payable if the condition had been complied with by the date of the hearing even though compliance had not been achieved by the date of the issue of proceedings: ‘ the objective of the legislation is not the punishment of landlords but the achieving of proper protection of tenants’ deposits.’ (Sedley LJ dissenting)
Thorpe, Sedley, Rimer LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1224, [2011] 1 All ER 1059, [2010] 49 EG 80, [2011] HLR 10, [2011] L and TR 10, [2010] 46 EG 117, [2010] NPC 112, [2012] 1 WLR 94, [2010] 3 EGLR 53, [2011] 1 P and CR DG14
Bailii
Housing Act 2004 214 213, The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – UK Housing Alliance (North West) Ltd v Francis CA 24-Feb-2010
Longmore LJ said: ‘Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the 2004 Act was intended to deal (inter alia) with the notorious abuse of landlords requiring deposits from prospective tenants but not keeping the sums paid in any separate account or refusing to repay . .
Approved – Draycott 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 . .
Cited by:
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 – Ayannuga 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 . .
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 – 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 – Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues CA 14-Jun-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425905