Potts v Densley & Anor [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) (06 May 2011)

Potts v Densley & Anor [2011] EWHC 1144 (QB) (06 May 2011)

Where a landlord secures the tenancy deposit in an authorised scheme before the hearing of a section 214 application, even if after the tenancy has ended, there is no basis for sanction under section 214(4); the judge had no discretion to refuse the sanction if a breach existed as of the hearing, but here, compliance was achieved before the hearing. The issue of prescribed information was not properly pleaded and could not be considered on appeal.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1144 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Karen Julie Potts; Defendant/respondent: Robert Densley; Defendant/respondent: Shirley Elizabeth Pays
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Schemes, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Statutory Interpretation, Sanctions for Non Compliance, Prescribed Information, Appeal Procedure
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Tenancy Deposit Schemes Assured Shorthold Tenancy Statutory Interpretation Sanctions for Non Compliance Prescribed Information Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Julie Potts

Claimant/appellant

Robert Densley

Defendant/respondent

Shirley Elizabeth Pays

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late compliance with tenancy deposit protection requirements under the Housing Act 2004 precludes sanction under section 214(4) if compliance occurs before the hearing
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide prescribed information under section 213(5) was properly pleaded and should have resulted in sanction
  3. 3 Whether the judge had discretion to refuse the mandatory sanction under section 214(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Where a landlord secures the tenancy deposit in an authorised scheme before the hearing of a section 214 application, even if after the tenancy has ended, there is no basis for sanction under section 214(4); the judge had no discretion to refuse the sanction if a breach existed as of the hearing, but here, compliance was achieved before the hearing. The issue of prescribed information was not properly pleaded and could not be considered on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for sanction under section 214(4) as deposit was protected before hearing
  • No order as to costs