Johnson & Ors v Anne Alexander Old

Johnson & Ors v Anne Alexander Old

Payment of six months' rent in advance under the tenancy agreement was not intended as security for the tenant's obligations but as discharge of a primary obligation to pay rent. Therefore, it does not constitute a tenancy deposit under section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004, and section 215 does not invalidate the section 21 notice.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Johnson, Damian Wood, Nigel Howell; Defendant/appellant: Anne Alexander Old
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Statutory Periodic Tenancy, Advance Rent, Section 21 Notice, Housing Act 2004, Housing Act 1988
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Tenancy Deposit Assured Shorthold Tenancy Statutory Periodic Tenancy Advance Rent Section 21 Notice Housing Act 2004 +1 more

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

Parties

Paul Johnson, Damian Wood, Nigel Howell

Claimant/respondent

Anne Alexander Old

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of six months' rent in advance constitutes a tenancy deposit under section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether section 215 of the Housing Act 2004 invalidates the section 21 notice if the payment is a deposit not protected
  3. 3 Proper construction of the tenancy agreement regarding rent payments

Ratio Decidendi

Payment of six months' rent in advance under the tenancy agreement was not intended as security for the tenant's obligations but as discharge of a primary obligation to pay rent. Therefore, it does not constitute a tenancy deposit under section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004, and section 215 does not invalidate the section 21 notice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for possession stands
  • No relief granted to appellant