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

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll