Appeal Court Judgment on secs 213/214 Housing Act 2004.

[Jasper1965]

The Court of Appeal has held, by a majority, that late, but nevertheless due, compliance by a landlord with his dual obligations under Housing Act 2004 s. 213(3) and (6) (i.e. to protect a deposit received by him from his tenant and to provide prescribed information to the tenant) will furnish him with a complete defence to any claim by a tenant under section 214. The landlord has until the hearing of a tenant’s s.214 application to comply with his obligations under s.213.

 

Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Limited (t/a Universal Estates); Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher and others

 

[2010] EWCA Civ 1224, November 12, 2010

 

Thorpe LJ, Sedley LJ, Rimer LJ

 

 

 

Majority decision reached Sedley LJ registered strong opposition to the decision reached by the other two Judges.

 

Two Judges have effectively given Landlords carte blanche to fail to meet with the legal requirement to place a tenants funds paid as deposit into the TDS's until such time (if it ever comes) that the landlord is ushered into Court at the tenants expense.

So long as the LL pays the deposit into a scheme BEFORE the date of any hearing set for a breach of the HA 2004 they are now deemed NOT TO BE IN BREACH and therefore the best a tenant can hope for is to retrieve their costs.

 

Personally I think it's a decision flawed by the word "and" at the end of Sec 214(6)(a) which to me implies that 214(6)(a) is dependent upon 214(6)(b).

 

This ruling means an awful lot of landords will now be holding onto that 3X deposit despite being months and in our particular case 2 years in default of statute.

[mariner51]

The decision will also protect inexperienced buy-to-let small landlords from a minority of 'professional' tenants seeking excessive compensation, when their own occupancy has been far from exemplary!

 

If I read the decision qoute correctly, the defence is allowed if the deposit has been protected in an Approved Scheme AND the tenant served with details of the Scheme before the date of the hearing.

Not quite carte blanche.

 

Anyway deposits are going out of fashion in favour of property-owning Guarantors thanks to this bit of protective legislation.

 

Would be interesting to read Sedley LJ objections. Anyone provide a direct link to the Appeal?

[xoAmyox]

http://painsmith.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/universal-v-tiensia.pdf