Suurpere v Nice & Anor

Landlords have two continuing obligations under the tenancy deposit provisions: to safeguard the deposit and to provide the tenant with the prescribed information in the prescribed form or substantially the same form. Both obligations may be fulfilled up to the hearing of a tenant’s application under section 214, but late compliance avoids the statutory sanction only if both obligations have been fulfilled by then. The landlord must provide the information personally; information supplied by the scheme administrator or made available on a website is insufficient. Repayment of the deposit before the hearing does not end the obligation. The statutory sanction remains available where the tenancy has not been lawfully determined.

The claimant appealed against an order of His Honour Judge Reid QC dated 1 June 2010 dismissing her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the Housing Act 2004. She had paid a deposit under an assured shorthold tenancy. The landlords transferred it to an authorised scheme after the statutory 14-day period, supplied some information, and returned the deposit before the hearing.

The appeal concerned whether the prescribed information had been provided, whether repayment of the deposit ended the statutory obligation, and whether the tenancy had ended so as to prevent an order under section 214(4).

1. Appeal allowed. The order below was set aside. The respondents were ordered to pay £1,500, representing three times the deposit, within 14 days.
2. Under sections 213 and 214 of the Housing Act 2004, the landlord’s obligations are dual and continuing: the deposit must be dealt with under an authorised scheme and the tenant must receive the prescribed information in the prescribed form or substantially the same form. The information obligation is of equal importance to the deposit-protection obligation.
3. Following the majority decision in Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1224, the landlord may comply with both obligations up to the date of the hearing. The purpose of the legislation is proper protection of deposits, rather than punishment for its own sake.
4. Repayment of the deposit before the hearing does not discharge the landlord’s continuing obligation to provide the prescribed information. The obligation is personal to the landlord. Information supplied by the Deposit Protection Service, or available on its website, does not satisfy the statutory requirement, particularly because the prescribed information must be certified by the landlord as accurate.
5. The reasoning in Potts v Densley and Pays [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) was applicable. The contrary reliance on Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi [2011] EWCA Civ 604 failed because there was no evidence that the tenancy had ended or been surrendered. The possession proceedings remained outstanding and the notice was defective.
6. By the hearing date the respondents had not supplied the prescribed information. The conditions for relief under section 214(2) were therefore satisfied. Since the deposit had already been returned, an order under section 214(3) was unnecessary, but the mandatory payment under section 214(4) was required.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal allowed against the order of His Honour Judge Reid QC dated 1 June 2010. The order was set aside and the respondents were ordered to pay £1,500.