Martyna Switaj v Adrian McClenaghan

Martyna Switaj v Adrian McClenaghan

Payments required and made before the Tenant Fees Act 2019 came into force, specifically the check-out fee paid under a previous tenancy, do not preclude the service of a section 21 notice in respect of a subsequent tenancy where no new requirement for such payment is imposed. The Act is not retrospective, and passive retention of monies does not amount to a prohibited payment or requirement under the current tenancy.

Parties
Appellant: Martyna Switaj; Respondent: Adrian McClenaghan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenant Fees Act 2019, Section 21 Notices, Prohibited Payments, Transitional Provisions, Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Tenant Fees Act 2019 Section 21 Notices Prohibited Payments Transitional Provisions Assured Shorthold Tenancy

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martyna Switaj

Appellant

Adrian McClenaghan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments required and made before the Tenant Fees Act 2019 came into force preclude the service of a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988 for a subsequent tenancy.
  2. 2 Whether retention of a check-out fee paid under a previous tenancy constitutes a prohibited payment under the current tenancy for the purposes of the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Ratio Decidendi

Payments required and made before the Tenant Fees Act 2019 came into force, specifically the check-out fee paid under a previous tenancy, do not preclude the service of a section 21 notice in respect of a subsequent tenancy where no new requirement for such payment is imposed. The Act is not retrospective, and passive retention of monies does not amount to a prohibited payment or requirement under the current tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.