Tenancy Deposit – Tiensia revisited

We reported the County Court hearing of Universal Estates v Tiensia in this post. Since then we have heard of developments in this case, with a tantalising hint of a higher court judgment in the offing.

Tiensia at County Court first instance found that late compliance in protecting the deposit and sending the required information was not ‘complying with the initial requirements of the scheme’ (s.213 HA 2004) because the requirements of the scheme itself, Tenancy Deposit Solutions Limited, required this to be done within 14 days of receiving the deposit (and, apparently, also so did s.213).

Now it turns out that Universal Estates appealed, presumably to the Circuit Judge. The appeal was granted on the basis that the sanctions in s.214(3) and (4) don’t apply where the landlord has complied with the requirements of the scheme, and provided the information to the tenant, by the date of the hearing of the HA 2004 claim.

Apparently the Court of Appeal has granted permission for a second appeal. This means this issue might finally get in front of a court of record.

I know nothing further, so all information gratefully received.

[For all tenancy deposit case posts click here]

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, Deposits, FLW case note, Housing law - All and tagged , . RSS feed for this post and comments.

About

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts, and still is Nearly Legal on Google +

9 Comments

  1. J
    Posted 23/11/2009 at 8:37 am | link to comment
  2. Posted 23/11/2009 at 9:26 am | link to comment

    This is surprising as the normal route of appeal for a part 8 claim is to the High Court.

    • J
      Posted 23/11/2009 at 9:46 am | link to comment

      But this is a second appeal, and, hence, to the Court of Appeal

    • Posted 23/11/2009 at 10:00 am | link to comment

      This was a possession claim under Ground 8, with tenant’s counterclaim, hence fast track and first appeal to the CJ, I believe.

  3. David
    Posted 25/11/2009 at 1:26 pm | link to comment

    When I read this in LAG they quoted the rent as £2,400 pcm. If this is true, why is no one arguing that this was not an AST as the rent exceeded the threshold? If it is not an AST then surely the rest of the arguments fall flat as there is no legal requirement to comply with tenancy deposit protection.

  4. ben
    Posted 08/12/2009 at 2:00 pm | link to comment

    Anyone got a view on Landlord’s liability to protect a deposit when the tenant has been paying it in installments? Does liabilty arise when the final installment is paid or the first. Maybe interesting to note that a colleague just had a go at using a Section 214 claim as a counterclaim on possession proceedings but judge refused, stating use 208 application separately

    • Cameron
      Posted 08/12/2009 at 3:39 pm | link to comment

      I’ve previously been able to argue counter claim against ground 8 notice in County Court due to failure to protect a deposit (in that case “advance rent”) and the case was adjourned for further subs. A consent order was eventually agreed to so can’t say what final outcome might have been sadly.

      Think as with anything to do with TDP it depends largely on your friendly local DJ. Fingers crossed we get something from a higher court sooner rather than later.

    • Posted 08/12/2009 at 11:50 pm | link to comment

      The counterclaim is a surprise. I know of several counterclaims made in just such a way – a rogue DJ perhaps and may be worth an appeal to a CJ by your colleague. Overriding objective under the CPR, surely – or at least a stay of the possession claim pending issue of the tenant’s claim so that they can be joined.

      On the installment point, dunno, but my first response would be that any sum received as a deposit must be protected within the required period, no matter whether it is the full contractual deposit or not. There is no such distinction in HA 2004. So I’d say from the first installment.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

css.php