More Deposit Protection Developments

Author: Chris Alexander

The Court of Appeal has just handed down judgement in another tenancy deposit scheme case defeating another tenant seeking its the windfall of three times the value of the deposit.

Last years decision in Tiensia v  Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates) and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher and Others [2010] EWCH Civ 1144 (QB) heavily blunted the financial sanctions against landlords for non-compliance with the deposit requirements of the Housing Act 2004. See my blog written at the time.

Potts v Densley and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1224 was an appeal by a tenant who put forward a clever argument that where a tenancy has ended before the deposit is protected, the relationship of “landlord and tenant” has ended.  Consequently, it was not technically possible for the “landlord” as defined in the Housing Act 2004, to register the deposit with a scheme after the end of the tenancy.  The Court of Appeal disagreed and said that the relationship of landlord and tenant crystallised when the deposit was paid.

A good try by the tenant but the Courts are showing a great reluctance to enforce the financial  provisions of the Housing Act 2004 and this is another example of this.  Back to the drawing board for the tenant, although as the parties represented themselves at least there were no heavy legal costs for them to deal with!