ROSS COOPER AGAINST SIMON MARRIOTT [2016] ScotSC 25 (04 April 2016)

ROSS COOPER AGAINST SIMON MARRIOTT [2016] ScotSC 25 (04 April 2016)

The landlord's failure to lodge the tenancy deposit in an approved scheme for two years constitutes flagrant breach of the regulations, with no mitigation available. The tenancy was continued by tacit relocation, and the application was timely. Collateral allegations of dishonesty and illegality against the tenant were unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The landlord is liable for a regulatory sanction of double the deposit less proven damage.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 25
Parties
Applicant: Ross Cooper; Respondent: Simon Marriott
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Application Under the Tenancy Deposit Schemes (scotland) Regulations 2011 / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Schemes, Short Assured Tenancy, Regulatory Sanctions, Mitigation, Tacit Relocation
Landlord and Tenant Regulatory Law Tenancy Deposit Schemes Short Assured Tenancy Regulatory Sanctions Mitigation Tacit Relocation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross Cooper

Applicant

Simon Marriott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Application Under the Tenancy Deposit Schemes (scotland) Regulations 2011 / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy deposit was required to be lodged in an approved scheme under the Tenancy Deposit Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2011
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy was covered by the regulations given alleged non-principal home status
  3. 3 Whether the application was time barred due to alleged creation of a new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's failure to lodge the tenancy deposit in an approved scheme for two years constitutes flagrant breach of the regulations, with no mitigation available. The tenancy was continued by tacit relocation, and the application was timely. Collateral allegations of dishonesty and illegality against the tenant were unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The landlord is liable for a regulatory sanction of double the deposit less proven damage.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Landlord to pay tenant £1050 by way of sanction (double deposit less £50 for table damage)
  • Applicant awarded expenses as taxed by the auditor of court