TenantsTips / Home / Legal Help / Landlord and Tenant Law / The landlord has not registered my tenancy deposit or served the prescribed information - Landlord and Tenant Law

The landlord has not registered my tenancy deposit or served the prescribed information - Landlord and Tenant Law

Potts vs Densley & Pays

High Court, 6 May 2011, [2011] EWHC 1144

(Ref Letting Update July 2011, Issue 2, volume 19, p29)

Case background

The landlord had not protected the tenancy deposit during the tenancy. The tenant raised the fact that the deposit was not registered but this was in the latter stages of the tenancy period. The landlord had later offered to return the deposit money in full to the tenant. The offer was decline by the tenant who insisted on it being protected in one of the tenancy deposit schemes.

The tenant served written notice to leave and leaved on expiry of this notice. Following the departure of the tenant, the deposit was then protected with the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) but the prescribed information was never served on the tenant. Actually, the deposit had only been placed in a ‘suspense’ account with the DPS and hadn’t actually been protected as it had been received by the DPS after the tenancy had finished.

In court

The judge found that the landlord had technical breached the deposit protection legislation, but refused to make the award of three times the deposit amount. It is an assumption that this could have been down to the offer of a full refund from the landlord before the end of the tenancy agreement. The tenant obtained legal representation and appealed to the High Court.

The appeal

The judge upheld the appeal. The landlord was given until the date of the hearing of the tenant’s application to comply with the deposit protection provisions and subsequently secured the tenancy deposit before the hearing date. Regarding the failure to provide the prescribed information, the judge held that due to the failure to plead this in the particulars of the claim submitted by the tenant, the judge had not erred. Due to it not being mentioned in the particulars there was no further action taken.

The verdict

The landlord won the case and was NOT ordered to pay 3 times the deposit amount. The tenant was refunded her original deposit.



ACCOUNT LOGIN