Suurpere v Nice & Anor
The Respondents failed to provide the prescribed information as required by s.213(6)(a) and the 2007 Order by the date of the hearing, and the tenancy had not been lawfully determined. The Appellant was entitled to a penalty of three times the deposit under s.214(4).
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Karin Suurpere; Respondent/defendant: Christopher Nice; Respondent/defendant: Patricia Nice
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- 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.
Parties
Karin Suurpere
Appellant/claimant
Christopher Nice
Respondent/defendant
Patricia Nice
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents complied with the deposit protection and prescribed information requirements under sections 213–214 of the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007
- 2 Whether the Appellant was entitled to a penalty under s.214(4) for non-compliance
Ratio Decidendi
The Respondents failed to provide the prescribed information as required by s.213(6)(a) and the 2007 Order by the date of the hearing, and the tenancy had not been lawfully determined. The Appellant was entitled to a penalty of three times the deposit under s.214(4).
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- The Respondents are ordered to pay the Appellant £1,500 within 14 days.
- Consequential orders below are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment