• Home
  • About
  • Clinic
  • Training
  • Tenants
  • Landlord Law

The Landlord Law Blog

From landlord and tenant lawyer Tessa Shepperson

  • Home
  • Posts
  • News & comment
  • Cases
  • Tenants
    • The Renters Guide Website
    • 15 Places for tenant help
  • Clinic
  • Series
    • Analysis
    • should law and justice be free
    • HMO Basics
    • Tenancy Agreements 33 days
    • Airbnb
    • Grounds for Eviction
    • Tips

Tenancy Deposit protection and points from the Khuja v Chowdhury case

July 14, 2015 by Tessa J Shepperson

Khuja v ChowdhuryKhuja v Chowdhury is a recent case on tenancy deposits from the County Court. It has been published on BAILII so it is likely to be influential.

So you need to know about it.

The case was a claim for possession based on section 21 – you will find the facts of the case on the Nearly Legal Blog.

Here we look at some important points that arise from the case:

Two cases consecutive cases

There had been a previous claim for possession under s21 which had been dismissed because the landlord had not served the prescribed information.

However, this earlier claim did not prevent the defendant from defending as the defence she had raised in that case, was a different one. That had been about the prescribed information, here she was defending on the basis that the deposit was protected late.

Hearing the counterclaim for the penalty at the same time as the claim

The tenant had put in a counterclaim for the penalty for non-protection of the deposit (s214 of the Housing Act 2004).

The landlord said this should not be dealt with at the same time – but this was rejected by the Judge as the arguments are closely connected

Refunding the deposit

The court found that the deposit had not been protected within the required 30 days and the deposit money had not been returned as per s.215(2A)(a).

The landlord said that the tenant was not entitled to rely on this as he had offered to pay the money back to her at the previous hearing and she had refused.

The Judge accepted that this had happened but said that this was not the same as the money being paid back ‘within the meaning of the statute’, particularly as the tenant did not have the benefit of legal advice at that time.

For example, the defendant told the court that had the money been offered again later she would have accepted. However the landlord did not do this, neither did he send her a cheque.

The Judge went on to say

There is no evidence that the Defendant unreasonably refused the money at the hearing, or that that she has since deliberately refused to accept the return of her deposit in order to avoid possession proceedings

Points on refunding the deposit money

Leading on from this, here are a few points we can draw out:

  • Just making an offer to refund the money once which is rejected, is not sufficient to comply with the statute
  • However if a defendant ‘unreasonably refuses’ to accept the money in order to avoid possession proceedings, this may prevent her from defending on this point
  • Sending a cheque to the defendant may be sufficient therefore even if it is never cashed

However notwithstanding this, my view is that the landlord will still need to do all he can to ensure that the money is returned – maybe like the landlord in this post who pushed the cash through the letter box witnessed by the police.

Financial awards in s214 claims

The tenant made a claim for between 1 and 3 times the deposit as per s214 of the Housing ct 2004.

It looks from the decision as if the amount of the award will be assessed as follows:

  • The tenant will be awarded 1x the deposit sum in situations where the landlord was not at fault and the time limit has only been missed by a small amount
  • The tenant will be awarded 3x the deposit sum if there has been a flagrant disregard for the rules, and the deposit has been dissipated in some way
  • In all other cases, where the landlord ‘ought to have known’ that the deposit needed to be protected, an award of 2x the deposit sum is likely.

Note that if the landlord had protected the deposit late but within the initial fixed term, he would have been saved by the Deregulation Act.

Conclusion

This is a useful case and no doubt will be used and cited in many future claims.

It goes to show that landlords need to be careful to comply with the rules and (as this landlord was unrepresented) get proper advice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Law case report

Scroll down for the comments

IMPORTANT: Please check the date of the post above - remember, if it is an old post, the law may have changed since it was written.

You should always get independent legal advice before taking any action.

Notes on comments:

For personal landlord and tenant related problems, please use our >> Blog Clinic.
Note that we do not publish all comments, please >> click here to read our terms of use and comments policy. Comments close after three months.

Keep up with the news on Landlord Law blog!

To get posts sent direct to your email in box click here

About Tessa J Shepperson

Tessa is a specialist landlord & tenant lawyer and the creator of this site! She is a director of Landlord Law Services which runs Landlord Law and Easy Law Training.

« The Sharing Economy – why allowing lodgers can be good
Can a landlord change the locks if tenants fail to move out after giving notice to quit? »

Comments

  1. Terry Samuel says

    July 14, 2015 at 7:54 AM

    This case continues to demonstrate that it is far simpler not to take a deposit.

    It is much easier to insist on guarantors, particularly if they are a close relative guarantor.

    Who wants to see their mum or dad taken to court for their not paying the rent.

    The landlord would not be be accused of harassing a tenant for payment, mum or dad would harass their sibling legally for the landlord.

    • Matthew says

      July 14, 2015 at 9:13 AM

      You try telling a higher earning young professional that you want a guarantor in the form of their parents.

      I don’t think you’ll get far.

  2. Linda Howard. says

    July 14, 2015 at 3:16 PM

    Hi Tessa

    I am a bit confused about your comment ” Note that if the landlord had protected the deposit late but within the initial fixed term, he would have been saved by the Deregulation Act.”. Can you explain how he would have been saved by the Deregulation Act as I cannot see anything in the Act that would save him if he did not protect within 30 days of the start of the tenancy unless that tenancy started pre April 2007?

  3. Ela says

    July 14, 2015 at 3:27 PM

    Wouldn’t mind some clarity please on the section ‘Note that if the landlord had protected the deposit late but within the initial fixed term, he would have been saved by the Deregulation Act’ My understanding is that this is true in relation to serving of the s21 but not the ability to claim for late protection? Any views?

  4. Tessa Shepperson says

    July 14, 2015 at 3:46 PM

    The reason I put this is that it appears in the Deregulation Act that where a periodic tenancy is created automatically at the end of a fixed term, the provisions of the tenancy deposit scheme are treated as being complied with by the landlord if they deposit has been protected and the prescribed information served during that fixed term.

    So if the landlord had protected the deposit late but during the fixed term, he could have been all right.

    • Romain says

      July 16, 2015 at 7:00 AM

      He would still be liable for the initial breach, though.
      Then he would still have to comply with the scheme’s initial requirements (i.e. Potentially ‘re-protect’) whenever a new tenancy is created.

  5. Industry Observer says

    July 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM

    Glad that Ela and my old friend Romain have made the points they have as that reference to the Deregulation Act confused me too.

    If an offence has been committed then an offence has been committed. As Roamin rightly says, and what you I think are getting at Tessa, subsequent tenancies may be OK and automatically protected.

    But an initial offence and any others following on from it remain ‘on the books’ as it were, and vulnerable to a s214 financial claim.

    In terms of likely awards it has almost always been the case post Localism Act that self managing Landlords get clobbered for less than agents. And that the greater the offence e.g. should have known better, the greater the penalty.

    What remains interesting and to which there is still really no answer is whether it is better to front up and register etc late, having committed the initial offence but doing the decent thing. Or whether it is better to keep quiet and hope for the best but aware that the longer registration is delayed, or not done at all, the higher the award may be.

“Interesting posts on residential landlord & tenant law and practice - in England & Wales UK”

Subscribe to the Landlord Law Blog by email

Never miss another post!

Sign up to our
>> daily updates

If you are new to the blog >> click here

Get Your Free Ebook:

Click to get your Free Ebook

>> Click Here for Your Free Copy

Featured Post

Tessa Shepperson

Why you need and how to get proper legal advice on landlord and tenant issues

Tessa’s Podcast

The Landlord and Lawyer Podcast

Worried about Insurance?

Landlord Law Insurance Mini-Course

Disclaimer

The purpose of this blog is to provide information, comment and discussion.

Although Tessa, or guest bloggers, may from time to time, give helpful comments to readers' questions, these can only be based on the information given by the reader in his or her comment, which may not contain all material facts.

Any comments or suggestions provided by Tessa or any guest bloggers should not, therefore be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified lawyer regarding any actual legal issue or dispute.

Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or perceived as creating a lawyer-client relationship (apart from the Fast Track block clinic service - so far as the questioners only are concerned).

Please also note that any opinion expressed by a guest blogger is his or hers alone, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Tessa Shepperson, or the other writers on this blog.

Cookies

You can find out more about our use of 'cookies' on this website here.

Associated sites

Landlord Law Services
The Renters Guide
Eco Landlords
Your Law Store

Legal

Landlord Law Blog is © 2006 – 2021 Tessa Shepperson.

Note that Tessa is an introducer for Alan Boswell Insurance Brokers and will get a commission from sales made via links on this website.

© 2006–2022 Tessa Shepperson | Rainmaker Platform | Contact Page | Privacy | Log in

This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
I accept