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]