Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk.
***
This is a new case reported in the excellent Legal Action Magazine, Saad v. Hogan from the Brentford County Court.
Ms Hogan paid her deposit, £1,000, in November 2005. Her tenancy was renewed in November 2007. In June 2008 the landlord brought proceedings for possession based on the serious rent arrears ground. Ms Hogan counterclaimed for the 'fine' of three times the deposit amount on the basis that the deposit had not been protected, and asked that this be offset against the rent arrears.
The Judge at first instance found for the landlord and made the possession order. This was on the basis that there was no obligation on the landlord to protect the deposit, as no deposit moneys had been paid when the tenancy was renewed in November 2007, but only before the regulations came into force on 7 April 2007. Ms Hogan appealed.
The appeal Judge viewed the case differently. He found it extraordinary that there was no provision in the legislation for this situation. However the main purpose of the legislation was to protect deposits. Although there had not been any physical or electronic payment of money in November 2007, in a sense there had been a payment at that time. He allowed the appeal, and awarded £3,000 to Ms Hogan to be offset against the rent arrears.
As this case was an appeal to the County Court Judge it will have more authority than District Judge decisions. However it will still, technically, not be binding. It would be nice if this could go to the Court of Appeal, so this point could be settled.
However the case does support the view generally taken by lawyers, that deposits paid before April 2007 are caught by the regulations if a new tenancy agreement is given to the tenant after that date.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health informationA physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 pat...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has voted unanimously to introduce amendments designed to strengthen the regulatory framework govern...
-
USA: Restoring American Financial Stability - discussion draft published by Senate Banking CommitteeThe United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs has published a discussion draft titled Restoring American Financ...
-
In case you were wondering, you really shouldn't expect that anything you post on your MySpace page will be kept private. If you are in ...
-
According to an article in USA Today, Facebook is following in the footsteps of Google and others by using targeted ads. I'm not at all ...
-
I was interviewed some time ago for a Globe & Mail article on workplace surveillance, which appeared yesterday. The piece discusses keys...
-
Like many people I suspect, I was concerned to read the recent BBC report about glass ceilings which, the report said, means that "to...
-
Earlier this year, in Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 261 , the Court of Appeal declined to follow the position, adopted in Re Guidezone [2...
-
In Gregson v HAE Trustees Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1006 (Ch) a so-called "dog-leg" claim was brought against the directors of a ...
Comments
Post a comment on: New tenancy deposit case - deposit paid before 7 April 07