Richworth Ltd v Billingham [2023] EW Misc 8 (CC) (14 August 2023)

Richworth Ltd v Billingham [2023] EW Misc 8 (CC) (14 August 2023)

A deposit may be 'returned' for the purposes of s215(2A)(a) Housing Act 2004 by delivery of a cheque for the full amount, even if the cheque is not presented, provided the tenant expressly or impliedly accepts payment by cheque or fails to reject it within a reasonable time. However, in this case, the District Judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EW Misc 8 (CC)
Parties
Landlord: Richworth Limited; Tenant: [Tenant Name Redacted]
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Possession Order (residential Premises) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Protection, Section 21 Notice, Return of Deposit by Cheque, Accelerated Possession Procedure, Statutory Interpretation
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Tenancy Deposit Protection Section 21 Notice Return of Deposit by Cheque Accelerated Possession Procedure Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richworth Limited

Landlord

[Tenant Name Redacted]

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Possession Order (residential Premises) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delivery of an uncashed cheque constitutes 'return' of a tenancy deposit under s215(2A)(a) Housing Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether non-communication of non-acceptance of a cheque is relevant to 'return' of deposit
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge erred in law in treating delivery of the cheque as return of the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

A deposit may be 'returned' for the purposes of s215(2A)(a) Housing Act 2004 by delivery of a cheque for the full amount, even if the cheque is not presented, provided the tenant expressly or impliedly accepts payment by cheque or fails to reject it within a reasonable time. However, in this case, the District Judge erred by treating non-communication of non-acceptance as determinative without evidence as to the relevant period or the parties' dealings, and without findings as to when the cheque was received or whether the tenant had accepted payment by cheque.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession order set aside
  • Matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment