Bihari v House Trader (UK ) Limited. 14 January 2010, Central London County Court
While we wait for the forthcoming High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in tenancy deposit cases, here is a tenancy deposit appeal, but, alas, only to a Circuit Judge, so not binding.
Mr B rented a two bed property from September 2006 and paid the deposit of £850.00 in respect of that AST in September 2006. The AST was renewed in September 2007 and the landlord/agent House Trader (UK) Limited did not protect the deposit after renewing the tenancy. The landlord rejected Mr B’s representations that it should be protected and the claim came to Uxbridge County Court. At first instance, the District Judge accepted the landlord’s argument that s.212-214 Housing Act 2004 did not apply to renewed tenancies where the deposit had initally been paid before April 2007.
HHJ Faber at Central London County Court allowed the tenant’s appeal, apparently on the basis that there was a deposit paid in relation to the premises and there was a post April 2007 tenancy agreement stating that a deposit had been paid in respect of that tenancy. The landlord was ordered to pay £3400, being the deposit and 3 x penalty.
Mr B was not legally represented, the appeal being conducted with help from a housing support worker, citing previous circuit Judge decisions in Saad v Hogan, Brentford County Court 16 February 2009, and Coutinho v Atkinson, April 2009, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court. Good work there, and thanks to Diana Ambrusne-Szoke for the details.
Now we wait eagerly to see what a higher court or two makes of the issues.
[For all tenancy deposit case posts click here]
This case raises a point which is actually unlikely to be dealt with in any of the pending higher court decisions. This is the interpretation of the references in the legislation to a deposit being received. Is a deposit that has already been paid over received again on a renewal? Additionally, if it is the case that a renewal requires protection on what basis is a change from a fixed term to a statutory periodic tenancy immune form the need to protect given that s5 of the Housing Act 1988 states that a statutory periodic tenancy is a new tenancy. This is an issue on which higher Court guidance is badly needed.
I agree. Although my previously stated view is that ‘received’ does not require a physical handing over. I can, of course, see the opposite argument ;-) There seem to be a number of these getting to appeal to a Circuit Judge, so fingers crossed for a second appeal one of these days.
Case was won again (12/03/2010) after House Trader asked the judge to put her decision aside. :)
Warrant for the execution was granted by Croydon County Court despite House Trader UK appealing and asking for payments by instalments.