header-logo header-logo

18 February 2010
Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Tenancy deposit ruling

The first ruling on tenancy deposit protection schemes under the Housing Act 2004 has been issued by the High Court.

The first ruling on tenancy deposit protection schemes under the Housing Act 2004 has been issued by the High Court.

In Draycott v Hannells Lettings Ltd, the agent admitted the deposit had been protected late, outside the 14-day requirement of the Act. The tenants claimed against the agent for the normal remedy that the deposit plus three times its value be returned in full.

The agents contested on the basis an agent should not be held liable for protection of the deposit, and that s 214 of the Act does not provide a penalty for late registration.

Mr Justice Tugendhat found against the agents on the first point, holding that an agent can be held liable in place of the landlord. He did not comment on whether an agent would be liable if the landlord had received the deposit and not registered it. However, he found in favour of the agent on the second point, ruling that late registration does not create a right for a tenant to seek penalty of three times the deposit.

The court further held that there was no initial requirement for the deposit to be protected within the scheme within 14 days of receipt.

Marveen Smith, principal of PainSmith, which acted for Hannells, says: “This is an important decision which brings much needed clarity to this area of the law.

“Many agents and landlords have been penalised when they had innocently failed to protect a deposit within 14 days despite the fact that they had not done so maliciously. They will breathe a sigh of relief that they now have a route by which they can satisfy their legal obligations and not face a penalty for doing so.”
 

Issue: 7405 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll