Court Cases
Baafi v Mapp Central London County Court 24 June 2010
Landlord had used MyDeposits to protect the deposit but had only given the tenant the certificate supplied by the scheme. This alone is not sufficient for the prescribed information requirements. Tenant defended subsequent section 21 possession claim and sought 3 x deposit. Held, landlords claim for possession dismissed and landlord ordered to pay the tenant 3 x deposit.
Draycott v Hennells 2010 (High Court so binding)
Hannells (agents acting on behalf of the landlord) were potentially liable for a failure to lodge a deposit it was found that their late lodging of that deposit with the DPS was not a breach of the Act or of the initial requirements of the DPS scheme and accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judgement against Hannells of the lower Court was set aside.
Therefore as things currently stand agents are liable for a failure to register the deposit, late registration does not automatically attract the penalties set out in section 214, and the DPS scheme has no initial requirement that the deposit be registered with it within 14 days of being received.
Harvey v Bamforth [2008] 46 EG 119 Sheffield County Court 8 August 2008
Deposit was protected on time but prescribed information provided after 14 days. As long as the prescribed information is given before an application by a tenant, the penalty of 3 x deposit does not apply.
Key question being asked was can an "ex-tenant" make an application for three times deposit? Answer, probably yes.
Piggott v Slaven, Great Grimsby County Court 23 February 2009
Landlord claimed the money he was holding was “rent in advance” and not a deposit. The court held it was being held to secure the obligation of paying the rent at some future time and was therefore a deposit as defined by s.212(8) HA 2004.
[Authors note: It has been our long term opinion that any landlord attempting to avoid the legislation by calling money held "rent in advance" will fail.]
Fergusen v Jones Birmingham County Court 5 Nov 2008
Overruled by Draycott v Hannells
Woods v Harrington, Haverfordwest County Court. 19 May 2009
Deposit was paid into scheme after tenancy had ended and perhaps more importantly after a claim was made by the tenant for the return of the deposit and compensation. The landlord was ordered to pay 3 x deposit plus repay the deposit itself. This should be distinguished from Draycott v Hannells where the deposit was protected before a claim was made.
Delicata v Sandberg, Central London County Court. 2 June 2009
Section 21 served same day as tenancy, therefore, before deposit was protected. Section 21 invalid because can’t be served at a time when the deposit is not protected
Bihari v House Trader (UK ) Limited. 14 January 2010, Central London County Court
A deposit was paid prior to tenancy deposit legislation. After April 2007 when the legislation came into force, the landlord and tenant renewed the tenancy. Deposit was required to be protected because of the renewal even though no money actually changed hands. Landlord ordered to pay deposit plus 3 x compensation.
Saad v Hogan Brentford County Court, 16 February 2009 (appeal heard in the County Court)
A deposit was paid prior to tenancy deposit legislation. After April 2007 when the legislation came into force, the landlord and tenant renewed the tenancy. Deposit was required to be protected because of the renewal even though no money actually changed hands. Landlord ordered to pay deposit plus 3 x compensation.
Universal Estates v Tiensia, Croydon County Court, 23 February 2009.
“Initial Requirements” of scheme were not met (not just s.213 requiring protection within 14 days). But see Draycott v Hannells. This case is going to the Court of Appeal.
Seghier v Rollings, Bow County Court, 6 March 2009
Prescribed information NEVER given, therefore 3 x deposit plus repayment awarded. Harvey v Bamforth distinguished because in that case the prescribed information had been given albeit after 14 days.
Coutinho v Atkinson Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court 2009
HHJ Cryan indicated that as far as he is concerned a deposit taken for a tenancy which began prior to the intorduction of TDP on 6 April 2007 does not have to be protected but that when the tenancy is renewed the deposit is, in effect, taken again and must therefore be protected from that point.
Landlord put agents address in prescribed information and tenant argued should be landlords home address. Court held agents address sufficient. Landlord had failed to include certain clauses in the tenancy agreement as required by the initial requirements of the Dispute Service rules. Tenant argued that landlord had therefore failed to comply with initial requirements (s.213) and therefore 3 x deposit should be awarded. Court agreed and held landlord had failed to comply with the schemes' initial requirements and ordered repayment of deposit plus 3 x deposit penalty.
- Login to post comments
