‘There will have been many cottages lying empty over the Easter period. Many of them will have been booked and the person who booked will have paid a deposit. What is the position? Are they liable to pay the balance? Can they recover the deposit? A cursory search of such guidance as there is online suggests that the doctrine of frustration may have been overlooked.’
Tanfield Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Liaw v Sohal. Central London County Court, 10 January 2019. (unreported elsewhere, we’ve seen the approved judgment). A county court first instance deposit claim decision, but with elements of interest and broader relevance (as well as some lessons to landlords as to how not to conduct a case.).
Nearly Legal, 11th January 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The director of a lettings and property management agency who defrauded more than £230,000 from the landlords and tenants that were his clients has received a two-year prison sentence, following an investigation by Southampton City Council’s Trading Standards Service.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Barber held that the Lundy Granite principle does not extend to an obligation to ‘top up’ a rent deposit fund, where sums had been withdrawn from the fund to pay rent. Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners shows how seemingly immaterial business decisions made when an entity is solvent will be thrown into relief when the same entity becomes insolvent. Here, the decision to ‘pay first, ask questions later’ from the deposit fund meant that the landlord effectively lost its priority ranking in respect of those rent payments; a priority it could otherwise have been entitled to. The case also demonstrates that the ambit of provable debts will continue to be construed broadly, while the category of administration expenses will be narrowly construed. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.’
Guildhall Chambers, 22nd November 2019
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘A quick note, because Rea Murray has done the heavy lifting for me. We’ve seen the ‘claims for multiple deposit breaches’ issues before, although in the guise of whether a claim could be brought for a number of tenancies at once. This was a county court appeal to a circuit judge on exactly what counted as a claimable breach, and how many could be claimed per tenancy.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd June 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Sebastiampillai v Parr. Central London County Court, 11 April 2019. Does a change of landlord require provision of fresh prescribed information? How does this operate in view of section 215B Housing Act 2004 (as inserted by the Deregulation Act 2015) and the express over-riding of the requirement to re-serve prescribed information on each replacement tenancy? This was the issue in this county court appeal from a first instance possession order.’
Nearly Legal, 6th May 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This was a directions hearing in a possession claim, supposedly brought by Ojo & Opaleye. The tenant, Ms M, was defending on the basis of failure to comply with deposit protection regulations.’
Nearly Legal, 15th February 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Ms T was Ms N’s assured shorthold tenant, with a fixed term tenancy starting on 25 July 2013. The tenancy became a statutory periodic on 25 July 2014. An initial deposit of £1300 was taken, but it was not protected until 22 January 2014. When the statutory periodic tenancy began, Ms N did not renew the deposit protection (as then required by MyDeposits) and the deposit ceased to be protected some weeks after the statutory periodic tenancy began. It was not again protected until 23 February 2017. Prescribed information was, in each case, provided to Ms T at about the time of the protection.’
Nearly Legal, 10th October 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘For many years, parts of the construction sector have pushed for improvement of the market’s treatment of retention monies. Post-Carillion and its devastating impact on suppliers, however, matters may have reached a tipping point. On 9 January 2018 – a few days before the construction giant’s collapse – the backbencher Peter Aldous introduced the Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill under Parliament’s Ten Minute Rule. Given the importance of government support in mustering a majority in the House of Commons, relatively few Private Members’ Bills (PMB) become law. To this end, proponents of the “Aldous Bill”, not least the Waveney MP himself, have been busily promoting its merits within the industry and rallying support among politicians ahead of it being debated by MPs at the second reading.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2018
‘The Claimants were the tenants of a property owned by the Defendant by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 18th September 2012. A deposit was paid in the sum of £500 but not protected by the Defendant.’
Nearly Legal, 31st October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A law firm with offices in Italy and England has lost its appeal against a High Court ruling that it was under a duty to warn British and Irish property investors of the risks of investing in a part of Italy associated with organised crime.’
Legal Futures, 2nd August 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘And indeed never authorised the co-purchaser to enter into a contract on her behalf without her consent, did not know that he was entering into a contract, or consent to his doing so on her behalf. That was the remarkable situation in the case of Rabiu v. Marlbray Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 5147. At first blush one might have thought, in line with the decision in Suleman v. Shahsavari [1998] 1 WLR 1181, that in the absence of the signature of one of the co-purchasers, there was no binding contract and that that would be the end of the matter. So the trial judge concluded, but the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of the case the purchaser who had signed had rendered himself liable as between himself and the vendor of the property, notwithstanding the absence of the signature of his co-purchaser. In so doing it distinguished Suleman. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which runs to 111 paragraphs, considers a number of issues and repays careful study. This casenote will consider the questions of the validity of the contract between the vendor and the copurchaser and the formalities required by s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. A second casenote (to follow) will consider whether, on the assumption that there was no valid contract as between the vendor and the co-purchaser (either because the contract had not been signed by the other co-purchaser, or because of want of the formalities required by s.2), the vendor was required to return the co-purchaser’s deposit or could retain it.’
Radcliffe Chambers, February 2017
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘Deposit orders can be a useful tool for respondents facing unmeritorious claims. This is particularly true for discrimination or whistleblowing claims, which are notoriously difficult to get struck out. A separate deposit order can be made in respect of each allegation in a claim, not just each claim, and this can be useful where the claims make wide-ranging allegations over a long period.’
Littleton Chambers, 19th January 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Every now and again there is a reminder of the problems of a contractual tenancy. In this case, the difficulties involved a deposit of £52,000 and a weekly rent of £6,500.’
Nearly Legal, 5th September 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths [2014]. Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Contracts for the sale of land can fail to complete for many reasons. The Standard Conditions and Standard Commercial Conditions require a 10% deposit to be paid on exchange of contracts. This can amount to a substantial sum of money. Purchasers will know that where they fail to complete it is commonplace for the vendor to retain that deposit. In the current market, with property prices soaring ever higher, the out-of-pocket purchaser may be justified in feeling that the vendor has obtained a windfall in keeping the deposit and selling the property on to a third party at a higher price.’
Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’
Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This was an appeal of a possession order made against Mr Bali at Lambeth County Court. Mr B was the assured shorthold tenant of Manaquel Company Limited. A deposit was taken and protected. Manaquel subsequently purportedly served a section 21 notice and brought possession proceedings. At first instance, the issue was whether Manaquel had complied with the requirements on serving the Prescribed Information.’
Nearly Legal, 18th April 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’
Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court has given a reminder of the important qualification to the general principle that a lawyer, or licensed conveyancer, is not obliged to undertake investigations that are not expressly or impliedly requested by the client. The principle is subject to the qualification that: if in fact a solicitor acquires information that may be of importance to a client; then it is the duty of the solicitor to bring that information to the attention of the client. It is the client who decides whether the information is important; the lawyer should not presume to make that decision. Failing to consider information, to advise the client or even pass on such information to the client can be costly. It is safer to communicate too much rather than too little.’
36 Bedford Row Property Blog, 27th October 2015
Source: www.36property.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024