Shaikh & Ors v Semhi & Ors

Two separate breaches occurred: failure to secure the deposit at the outset of the fixed term tenancy and failure to comply with deposit protection requirements upon commencement of the statutory periodic tenancy. Each breach attracts a separate penalty under section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004, and deliberate deception by the landlord's agent justifies the maximum penalty for each breach.

Parties: Claimant: Shaikh & Others; Defendant: Sehmi & Others
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 20 August 2025
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; Deputy District Judge's order substituted.
Legal Topics: Tenancy Deposit Protection, Statutory Periodic Tenancy, Penalties for Breach, Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Tenancy Deposit Protection Statutory Periodic Tenancy Penalties for Breach Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Shaikh & Others

Claimant

Sehmi & Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether multiple penalties under section 214(4) of the Housing Act 2004 are payable for breaches at the commencement of both the fixed term and statutory periodic tenancies
2 Whether section 215B of the Housing Act 2004 precludes multiple penalties where the original tenancy requirements were not complied with
3 Whether deliberate deception by the landlord's agent affects the quantum of penalty

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Deputy District Judge's order substituted.

Orders

Defendant to pay claimant £7,062 (three times the deposit) for breach at the outset of the fixed term tenancy.
Defendant to pay claimant £7,062 (three times the deposit) for breach at the commencement of the statutory periodic tenancy.