Khuja v Chowdhury [2015] EW Misc B18 (CC) (14 May 2015)

Khuja v Chowdhury [2015] EW Misc B18 (CC) (14 May 2015)

The section 21 notice was invalid because the deposit was not protected and prescribed information not given within 30 days of receipt, and the deposit had not been returned nor a court application determined. The Defendant is entitled to return of the deposit and a penalty of twice the deposit under section 214 Housing Act 2004.

Citation
[2015] EW Misc B18 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Khuja; Defendant: Mrs Chowdhury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Possession and Counterclaim / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim for possession dismissed; counterclaim allowed.
Legal Topics
Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Tenancy Deposit Protection, Section 21 Notice, Counterclaim for Deposit Penalty

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

Parties

Mr Khuja

Claimant

Mrs Chowdhury

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Counterclaim / Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the section 21 notice was valid given late deposit protection and late provision of prescribed information
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to return of deposit and penalty under section 214 Housing Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The section 21 notice was invalid because the deposit was not protected and prescribed information not given within 30 days of receipt, and the deposit had not been returned nor a court application determined. The Defendant is entitled to return of the deposit and a penalty of twice the deposit under section 214 Housing Act 2004.

Court Disposition

Claim for possession dismissed; counterclaim allowed.

Orders

  • Claim for possession dismissed
  • Deposit of £800 to be repaid to Defendant