More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Assured Shorthold tenancy
Benefits and care
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Regulation and planning
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

Too soon?


Our thanks to Sally Blackmore of Ely Place Chambers for her note of this deposit case, which unaccountably slipped past us at the time (a year ago). The issue is the effect of the landlord providing the prescribed information before a deposit has actually been received.

The parties aren’t named, nor is the court (though I’m guessing Barnet County Court). But the facts are as follows.

This was a possession claim based upon a s.21 notice. The tenant defended, and sought summary judgment, on the basis that the landlord had not complied with section 213(6) Housing Act 2004, as the prescribed information had not been provided to the tenant and any relevant person ‘within the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord’ – s.213(6)(b) – thus no s.21 notice could be served, under s.215 HA 2004.

The deposit was to be provided for the tenant by London Borough of Barnet. On the landlord’s account, LB Barnet required the landlord to satisfy certain matters before the money for the deposit would be released.  These matters include that the council must be shown a deposit protection certificate and evidence that the prescribed information has been given to the tenant.

(We’ll pause for a moment to note that this doesn’t entirely make sense. There is no way that a deposit protection certificate can be provided before the deposit has been received and registered. Unless the landlord is also fibbing to the protection scheme. But no matter, as it is the prescribed information that concerns us here.)

Whatever the actual facts of the matter, it was common ground that the prescribed information was given to the tenant, but before the landlord had received the deposit.

The District Judge held that the wording of s.213(3) and (5) meant that parliament had intended that the deposit should be protected and the prescribed information given to the tenant after the deposit had been received. Providing the prescribed information before the deposit was received by the landlord was not ‘within 30 days beginning on the date’ the deposit was received.

It followed that the s.21 notice could not be served and the possession claim was dismissed on summary judgment.


This is a first tier county court judgment, so not binding at all. But, the decision does have a point on the wording of s.213 HA 2004.

There may indeed be other reasons why giving the prescribed information before the deposit is actually received would be a bad idea. Not least because 2.(1)(g)(i) of The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 says that the information must contain “the amount of the deposit paid”, which would be, well, difficult if it hasn’t been paid. Thus the prescribed information may not actually have been given at all.

There are potential pitfalls here for landlords and agents. Some of the deposit schemes require the prescribed information to be included in the tenancy agreement (apart from s.2(1)(b) “any information contained in a leaflet supplied by the scheme administrator to the landlord which explains the operation of the provisions contained in sections 212 to 215 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Act(3)”, obviously). It is not wholly unlikely that the tenancy agreement (and the prescribed information) has been given to the tenant before the landlord has received the deposit. If so, and if the reasoning of this judgment gets broader traction, which it may, then this is a dangerous practice.

The answer, of course, is simple. Once the deposit has been received, provide the prescribed information again, within the 30 days. But people are going to have to remember to do that.

If it is true that Barnet Council demanded that the landlord show that the prescribed information had been provided to the tenant before they would had over the deposit payment (and we have only the landlord’s word for that), then they would be a very silly council indeed – for the reasons given above. It is not actually possible.

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.


  1. Stan1357

    As regards the supply fo the certificate before reciept of the depoist (“fibbing”), I had this same argument with well known national estate agents, Mydeposit scheme and the property ombudsman. They all told me that it was ok to lie about it. Just as well I did have to get a possession order.

  2. Sophie Barber

    Tenancy agreements can be tricky territory, particularly regarding deposits and other exchanges of money or information. The best bit is to contact your tenant frequently with updated information about their contract, tenancy agreement etc. Then you can avoid these sticky situations.

    • Giles Peaker

      That would potentially be a very bad idea. The tenancy agreement and contract cannot and should not be ‘updated’, so there should be any further information about them required so long as everything that should have been provided at the commencement of the tenancy was done.

      ‘Correcting’ information – for example deposit prescribed information – would simply be evidence that the prescribed information was not given correctly in the first place and so potentially open up a deposit claim.

      As you appear to be trying to do SEO (very badly), I’ve removed the link to a firm of solicitors. I’ll drop their practice manager and marketing manager a line about not doing comment spam.

      • Alex Rush

        I wonder if this case ruling is available to read? I this was week a claimant in a case which the county judge dismissed on the basis that the prescribed information had already been served in the tenancy agreement, before any deposit was paid (even though there was no procedural information included), and refused to consider the estate agent’s one year later revision of the prescribed information because these documents were provided to me by means of ‘without prejudice’ communication.

        • Giles Peaker

          No, it isn’t. And was just a first instance county court decision, so not binding.

      • Alex Rush

        I wonder, re ‘The answer, of course, is simple. Once the deposit has been received, provide the prescribed information again, within the 30 days’ – if the prescribed information was provided too early (within the tenancy agreement, before deposit payment), and without any procedural information, thus invalid according to a high court ruling [Ayannuga v Swindells (2012) CA (Civ) 6 November 2012, paragraph 26], would this be rectified if the landlord later (within 30 days of actual deposit receipt) provided an unsigned and otherwise incorrect prescribed information document together with the correct procedural information (ie, the scheme’s leaflet), or would the later prescribed information still need to be certified by the landlord and contain accurate information? Would two half rights add up to make a right, or would two wrongs be double wrong.

        • Giles Peaker

          I don’t follow. Are you asking whether the prescribed information can be given in pieces rather than as one document? If so, the answer to that is yes – many tenancy agreements contain the bulk of the prescribed info, but obviously not all of it, with the rest given separately.

      • Alex Rush

        In reply Giles Peaker on 01/12/2023 at 11:07 am. Thank you. I’m thinking of exactly that: the prescribed information is partially given in a signed tenancy agreement, before request for / receipt of deposit; later and within 30 days of actual deposit payment the prescribed information document is emailed via attachment, and this time with the deposit scheme’s procedural guide. However – the landlord provides no advice in email that they are now serving the procedural guide, and simply requests that the tenant sign the attached prescribed information document; furthermore – the later prescribed information document is unsigned by the landlord; the later prescribed information contains wrong information around date of deposit receipt; the tenant repeatedly advises the landlord that they cannot sign a document which misrepresents their financial dealings, but the landlord (surely, wrongly) advises the tenant that signing by the tenant is of no importance and just a matter of procedure.

        • Giles Peaker

          This sounds very much like advice on a specific individual situation, which we can’t give through the site, I’m afraid.

      • Alex Rush

        I do understand, for this reason I first tried to express in a more general way. Thanks for your writing, I have appreciated the content and enjoyed the lightness in the style.

      • Alex Rush

        But let me try to be very general and succint. If the prescribed information is partially served in the tenancy agreement, does the post deposit second serving need to be, in stand alone way, fully compliant with the 2007 order?

        • Giles Peaker

          My view, no.

          Not aware this has ever been tested.

  3. Tom

    Does anyone know what schemes require PI to be contained in the tenancy agreement?

    • Giles Peaker

      Not off the top of my head. You could check their T&Cs.

  4. Alex Rush

    Thank you. I can imagine an argument around where the first pre deposit serving in the tenancy agreement with signatures and (proposed) deposit amounts etc is supplemented by a later post deposit serving of the deposit scheme’s procedural guide, so that compliance has been achieved in an additive way. But what if the second serving is an attempt at full re serving, and the document itself is non compliant with multiple paragraphs of the 2007 Order?

      • I

        I’ve come across an odd situation where the PI was provided before the deposit was paid but on the same day and around an hour prior to payment. On a very literal reading of the rules, this would be compliant as the statue refers to days. An odd situation creating an exception.



  1. Tessa Shepperson Newsround #53 - […] post on the Nearly Legal site reports on a case where a landlord was required by the Council to…

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.