Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) (27 July 2011)

Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) (27 July 2011)

The Respondents failed to comply with their statutory obligation to provide the prescribed information under s.213(6)(a) Housing Act 2004 by the date of the hearing. The tenancy had not been lawfully determined as at the hearing, so the Appellant was entitled to a penalty under s.214(4).

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2003 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Karin Suurpere; Respondent/defendant: Christopher Nice; Respondent/defendant: Patricia Nice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Protection, Statutory Compliance, Sanctions for Non Compliance, Prescribed Information Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karin Suurpere

Appellant/claimant

Christopher Nice

Respondent/defendant

Patricia Nice

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents complied with the deposit protection scheme under s.213(6)(a) Housing Act 2004 and Article 2 of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was entitled to a penalty under s.214(4) Housing Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents failed to comply with their statutory obligation to provide the prescribed information under s.213(6)(a) Housing Act 2004 by the date of the hearing. The tenancy had not been lawfully determined as at the hearing, so the Appellant was entitled to a penalty under s.214(4).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order below set aside
  • Respondents to pay Appellant £1,500 within 14 days