Troisi v Vince

For the purposes of a claim under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004, an assured shorthold tenancy is not prolonged by unresolved financial disputes about the tenancy deposit. It ends when possession is consensually given up, where that occurs earlier than termination under the written tenancy terms. A claim made after the tenancy has ended therefore has no real prospect of establishing entitlement to the statutory payment of three times the deposit. On a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. A discretionary costs order will not satisfy that threshold without such a point or reason.

The appellant tenant claimed repayment of an £800 tenancy deposit and a payment of three times the deposit under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004. The deposit was later paid into the Deposit Protection Scheme. The county court ordered repayment of the deposit, the statutory payment and costs.

On the respondent’s appeal, HHJ Reid upheld repayment of the deposit but set aside the statutory payment and made no order for costs on the appeal or below. Rimer LJ refused permission to appeal on paper. The appellant renewed that application before the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the section 214 jurisdiction remained available after the tenancy had ended and whether the costs decision disclosed an appealable point.

1. Application refused. This was a second appeal, so permission required an important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason. The appellant did not satisfy that test.
2. The claim for the payment of three times the deposit had no real prospect of success. The application under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004 was made after the tenancy had ended. The tenancy ended, at the latest, when the tenant discovered that new tenants were occupying the premises. A tenancy is not extended by outstanding financial disputes between landlord and tenant, including disputes concerning the deposit. It ends when possession is consensually given up if that is earlier than the date otherwise fixed by the tenancy agreement.
3. There was no real prospect of overturning the costs order. The judge was exercising a discretion, and no important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason had been identified. The deposit dispute was effectively about £200 because the landlord had offered £600 of the £800 deposit before the hearing, whereas the substantially larger claim for three times the deposit had failed.
4. The refusal of permission left standing the decision setting aside the statutory payment and making no order for costs on the appeal or in the court below.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Rimer LJ refused permission to appeal on paper. On renewal, Mr Justice Briggs refused the application.
• Guildford County Court: HHJ Reid dismissed the appeal against repayment of the deposit, allowed the appeal against the payment of three times the deposit, and made no order for costs on the appeal or below.
• Staines County Court: District Judge Vary ordered repayment of the whole deposit, the payment of three times the deposit under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004, and costs.