header-logo header-logo

18 February 2010
Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Tenancy deposit ruling

The first ruling on tenancy deposit protection schemes under the Housing Act 2004 has been issued by the High Court.

The first ruling on tenancy deposit protection schemes under the Housing Act 2004 has been issued by the High Court.

In Draycott v Hannells Lettings Ltd, the agent admitted the deposit had been protected late, outside the 14-day requirement of the Act. The tenants claimed against the agent for the normal remedy that the deposit plus three times its value be returned in full.

The agents contested on the basis an agent should not be held liable for protection of the deposit, and that s 214 of the Act does not provide a penalty for late registration.

Mr Justice Tugendhat found against the agents on the first point, holding that an agent can be held liable in place of the landlord. He did not comment on whether an agent would be liable if the landlord had received the deposit and not registered it. However, he found in favour of the agent on the second point, ruling that late registration does not create a right for a tenant to seek penalty of three times the deposit.

The court further held that there was no initial requirement for the deposit to be protected within the scheme within 14 days of receipt.

Marveen Smith, principal of PainSmith, which acted for Hannells, says: “This is an important decision which brings much needed clarity to this area of the law.

“Many agents and landlords have been penalised when they had innocently failed to protect a deposit within 14 days despite the fact that they had not done so maliciously. They will breathe a sigh of relief that they now have a route by which they can satisfy their legal obligations and not face a penalty for doing so.”
 

Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll