Lowe v Charterhouse [2022] EW Misc 8 (CC) (28 October 2022)

Lowe v Charterhouse [2022] EW Misc 8 (CC) (28 October 2022)

The claim for statutory penalty is subject to a six-year limitation period under Limitation Act 1980 s.9. The only deposit paid was £3,300. The landlord gave the prescribed information to the tenant in 2010, and substantial compliance with the signature requirement sufficed. No additional deposit existed. No breach of the statutory requirements occurred within the limitation period. The claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EW Misc 8 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Lowe; Defendant: Charterhouse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Procedural Posture
County Court Claim for Statutory Penalty Under Housing Act 2004 S.214(4) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Protection, Limitation Periods, Assured Shorthold Tenancies, Statutory Interpretation
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Tenancy Deposit Protection Limitation Periods Assured Shorthold Tenancies Statutory Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lowe

Claimant

Charterhouse

Defendant

Procedural Posture

County Court Claim for Statutory Penalty Under Housing Act 2004 S.214(4) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for statutory penalty under Housing Act 2004 s.214(4) is statute-barred by Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether an additional payment of £729.60 constituted a tenancy deposit under Housing Act 2004 s.212(8)
  3. 3 Whether the landlord complied with the prescribed information requirements under Housing Act 2004 s.213(6) and the 2007 Order

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for statutory penalty is subject to a six-year limitation period under Limitation Act 1980 s.9. The only deposit paid was £3,300. The landlord gave the prescribed information to the tenant in 2010, and substantial compliance with the signature requirement sufficed. No additional deposit existed. No breach of the statutory requirements occurred within the limitation period. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for statutory penalty under Housing Act 2004 s.214(4) dismissed
  • No order for payment to the claimant