ROSS FRASER + ALISON PEASE v. ANDREW MEEHAN [2013] ScotSC 58 (12 September 2013)

ROSS FRASER + ALISON PEASE v. ANDREW MEEHAN [2013] ScotSC 58 (12 September 2013)

The defender failed to comply with Regulation 3 of the 2011 Regulations by not paying the deposit to an approved scheme and not providing required information. The sanction is penal, not compensatory, and must act as a deterrent. No proper explanation or mitigation was provided by the defender. The court has discretion up to three times the deposit and, in the circumstances, orders payment of £3,450 (three times the deposit).

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 58
Parties
Pursuer: Ross Fraser; Pursuer: Alison Pease; Defender: Andrew Meehan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under Tenancy Deposit Schemes (scotland) Regulations 2011 / Judgment After Proof (facts Admitted, No Evidence Led)
Outcome
Decree for payment granted in favour of pursuers; declarator of non-compliance granted; defender found liable in expenses.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Schemes, Sanctions for Non Compliance, Short Assured Tenancy, Return of Deposit, Statutory Duties of Landlords
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Tenancy Deposit Schemes Sanctions for Non Compliance Short Assured Tenancy Return of Deposit Statutory Duties of Landlords

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

Parties

Ross Fraser

Pursuer

Alison Pease

Pursuer

Andrew Meehan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Application Under Tenancy Deposit Schemes (scotland) Regulations 2011 / Judgment After Proof (facts Admitted, No Evidence Led)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender failed to comply with Regulation 3 of the Tenancy Deposit Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2011 by not paying the tenancy deposit to an approved scheme and not providing required information.
  2. 2 What amount, not exceeding three times the deposit, should be ordered as a sanction under Regulation 10.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to comply with Regulation 3 of the 2011 Regulations by not paying the deposit to an approved scheme and not providing required information. The sanction is penal, not compensatory, and must act as a deterrent. No proper explanation or mitigation was provided by the defender. The court has discretion up to three times the deposit and, in the circumstances, orders payment of £3,450 (three times the deposit).

Court Disposition

Decree for payment granted in favour of pursuers; declarator of non-compliance granted; defender found liable in expenses.

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuers £3,450 Sterling.
  • Defender found liable in expenses of the cause, to be taxed.