Rogue landlords exploit deposit protection loophole – The Guardian
‘Legislation to rein in bad landlords and agents can leave tenants out of pocket.’
The Guardian, 19th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Category: deposits
The Tenant (Super)Strikes Back – NearlyLegal
‘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
Early Compliance – NearlyLegal
‘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
Strike while the iron’s hot – recent developments in Tenancy Deposits, with more surely on the way – Zenith Chambers
“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
The test to be applied for ordering deposits Spring v First Capital East Ltd – No. 5 Chambers
“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 – WLR Daily
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
Deposit received, one way or another – NearlyLegal
“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
Johnson v. Old, deposits and rent paid by housing benefit – The Barristers’ Hub
“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
A Further Deposit From the Court of Appeal – NearlyLegal
“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/
Protect your deposits! Assured shorthold tenancies and rent deposits – Hardwicke Chambers
“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 – WLR Daily
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
31 days later: Failure to comply with s 213 of the Housing Act 2004 – Hardwicke Chambers
“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
Informing Deposits – NearlyLegal
“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
Lost and Found: the Tenancy Deposit Scheme – Zenith Chambers
“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 – WLR Daily
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
Procedural Control Mechanisms – Strike Out, Deposits, Stays and Costs – 11 KBW
“The Employment Tribunal system is under attack! It is regularly exposed to criticism as being inefficient, costing those who participate in it too much money and amounting to a disproportionate burden on business. Such criticism has been made all the more fiercely of late both because of the economic climate and also because the Government has been reviewing the Employment Tribunal system with the express aim of reducing the burden placed on business by it.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 10th November 2011
Source: www.11kbw.com
Landlords free to ignore deposit protection deadlines – The Guardian
“Appeal court says a strict interpretation of Housing Act allows landlords to disregard deadlines for tenant deposit schemes.”
The Guardian, 15th November 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd – Times Law Reports
Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd
Chancery Division
“The only real scope for the exercise of the court’s discretion, under section 49(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, to order the return of a deposit, was when the purchaser of a property was unable to perform the contract; whereas, a purchaser would have the right to the return of the deposit when a vendor was unable to perform the contract.”
The Times, 4th April 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
