A new Court of Appeal decision could affect some long-standing tenancies.
In the case of Charalambous v Ng the deposit was taken in 2002, before tenancy deposit protection became mandatory in April 2007.
The tenancy went periodic in 2005, and in 2012 the landlord served a Section 21 notice.
However, the Court of Appeal has ruled that this was invalid.
It said that the landlord was not in breach of tenancy deposit regulations and so could not be sued for any penalty.
However, the Housing Act says that a Section 21 notice cannot be served if the “deposit is not being held in accordance with an approved scheme”.
The implications are that landlords who took deposits before April 2007 should either protect the deposit in an approved scheme and serve the prescribed information, or return the deposit to the tenant should they want to issue a Section 21 notice.
There is a very good explanation by lawyer David Smith – who believes the case has put the cat among the pigeons – here
The actual case can be read here
It seems yet another case where the Government have not properly drafted their laws. May be it is also a case of too much money being spent on lawyers. The world seems to have lost the basic premise of the intention of the parties!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register