‘It started as such a simple idea, the tenancy deposit regulations. But bad drafting and some ‘interesting’ interpretations by the Courts put paid to that. We now have a confusing mess, for both landlords and tenants.’
Full story
Nearly Legal, 24th August 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A County Court deposit protection case, and an illustration of some of the ways in which landlords still haven’t figured out how the deposit rules work.’
Nearly Legal, 29th June 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Ng and another v Charalambous and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1604; [2014] WLR (D) 540
‘Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended, which provided that any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy in existence on 6 April 2012 had to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme, was concerned not with the date at which the deposit was received but with the date on which the tenancy was in effect. Where such a deposit was not held in an authorised scheme, having been received before the relevant date, the sanctions for non-compliance in section 215(1) nevertheless applied so as to preclude the landlord from serving on the tenant a valid notice stating that possession was required under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.’
WLR Daily, 16th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Most landlords of residential property take a deposit as security for their tenant’s liabilities. Since 1996 the vast majority of tenancies granted by private landlords and many tenancies granted by Registered Providers of housing have been assured shorthold tenancies (“ASTs”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘English landlords that secured deposits from fixed-term tenants would not have to re-comply with the deposit protection rules if that tenancy later ‘rolls over’ to become a statutory periodic tenancy or if the landlord enters into a new tenancy with the same tenant for the same premises, the UK government has proposed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Legislation to rein in bad landlords and agents can leave tenants out of pocket.’
The Guardian, 19th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘As we noted when writing up Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 (see our note, here), the case left open an interesting – and important – question. If a fixed term has expired and a statutory periodic tenancy arisen, do the requirements in s.213, Housing Act 2004 (deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme; comply with any initial requirements of the scheme; provide the prescribed information in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007) arise again? If they do, does non-compliance render s.21 notices invalid (s.215)and/or expose landlords to the statutory damages (s.214).’
NearlyLegal, 8th May 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This is a slightly surprising case involving a judicial review of refusal of permission to appeal.’
NearlyLegal, 11th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The facts of this new Court of Appeal decision – on the effect of a change in tenancy status on a landlord’s duty to protect a tenancy deposit – are deceptively simple. Its wider effects on claims to recover possession are yet to be felt.”
Zenith Chambers, 10th October 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“Although usually sought by employers, either party may apply to a tribunal for an order that the other party pay a deposit as a condition of continuing to argue a particular matter if the tribunal is satisfied that the contentions put forward by that party have ‘little reasonable prospects of success’: Rule 20(1) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004.”
No. 5 Chambers, 6th June 2013
Source: www.no5.com
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669; [2013] WLR (D) 235
“Where a tenant had paid a deposit under an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term which began before, but ended after, the commencement of section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, the landlord was obliged to deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme within 14 days of the coming into being of a new statutory periodic tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term; and by virtue of section 215(1) of the 2004 Act, non-compliance with that obligation precluded service by the landlord of a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There are still some questions to be cleared up on tenancy deposit law and this Court of Appeal case neatly deals with one of them, while opening up what might be a very large can of worms.”
NearlyLegal, 15th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“We’ve all seen the ubiquitous scene from the American court-room drama where the bespectacled and previously underrated legal assistant/student/intern etc. bursts into the back of the crowded court, and shouts ‘State v. Jones’ whilst waving the paper judgment triumphantly at the judge. The judge is thereby stopped from making the patently unjust ruling he was about to make, changing his mind in favour of the film’s protagonist. This doesn’t happen in real life, so it was with much anticipation that I awaited the case of Johnson v Old [2013] EWCA Civ 415, which I used in court less than 24 hours after it was handed down. My thanks go to Karen Reid, one of our pupils at 1 Gray’s Inn Square, who rushed from the RCJ, clutching the judgment, ink still drying from Sir John Chadwick’s quill (well, printer at least).”
The Barristers’ Hub, 12th June 2013
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has been turning its mind to another of the odd questions that has sprung from the fertile litigious bosom of tenancy deposit protection. In this case the argument was over the question of rent payable in advance.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“It is a common problem with assured shorthold tenancies of a flat or a house. An unscrupulous landlord takes a deposit from a tenant and then, at the end of the tenancy, refuses to return the deposit on some largely trumped up basis. In effect the landlord challenges the tenant to sue him for return of the deposit. The sums involved are important to the tenant losing them, but in reality are so small that the time and money required to recover them through the Courts is disproportionate. The landlord gets a windfall.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th April 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson: [2012] EWCA Civ 1794; [2013] WLR (D) 11
“Where a contract between a consumer and a trader for the supply of goods or services was made during a visit to the consumer’s home the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 applied, irrespective of whether there had been earlier negotiations between the parties at the consumer’s home.”
WLR Daily, 15th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Tenancy Deposit Scheme came into force on 6th April 2007. After the Court of Appeal handing down a number of controversial ‘landlord friendly’ judgments on the meaning of ss 213-215 of Housing Act 2004 (‘the Act’), Parliament amended these provisions by s 184 of the Localism Act 2011 (‘2011 Act’). The amendments came into force on 6 April 2012. Since this date, there is a tough new world out there for unorganised or inexperienced landlords. This article seeks to set out what is required by landlords and what happens when things go wrong.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 30th November 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has recently ruled on a tenancy deposit protection case regarding the issue of prescribed information. Here T had paid a deposit and L had protected it in one of the approved schemes but he had not given the prescribed information as required by the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007. T allegedly fell into rent arrears and L sought possession. T counter-claimned on the basis of lack of compliance with the Prescribed Information Order. L admitted non-compliance with the Order but argued that the requirement was largely procedural, thjat the purpose of the legislation was to protect depisits (which had been done) and that T could have found out all he wanted to know from teh scheme administrator. The lower Court dismised T’s claim holding that information in the tenancy agreement coupled with the further information provided by L during the hearing was enough to comply with the requirements of the Order.”
NearlyLegal, 7th November 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) legislation, set out in sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004, came into force in 2007 in respect of tenancy deposits paid by assured shorthold tenants. Essentially, it imposes two requirements on landlords:
(1) protection of the deposit paid in respect of such tenancies by paying it into an authorised scheme within 14 days of receipt of the deposit; and
(2) provision to the tenant of prescribed information, again within 14 days of the receipt of the deposit.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 5th April 2012
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Sharma and another v Simposh Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1383; [2011] WLR (D) 341
“Property in a deposit could pass to the vendor notwithstanding that the sale contract was void for non-compliance with the formal requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, provided that the payment was not intended to be conditional upon completion of the transaction; and the vendor could retain the deposit if the purchaser had received the expected benefit.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024