Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues
[2013] EWCA Civ 669
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A tenancy deposit that is not protected in an authorised scheme as required by sections 213–215 of the Housing Act 2004 prevents the landlord from serving a valid section 21 notice to recover possession, and the tenant is entitled to compensation of between one and three times the deposit.
Facts
The landlord sought possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. The tenant's deposit had not been protected in an authorised tenancy deposit scheme as required by the Housing Act 2004. The tenant argued the landlord could not rely on section 21 and counterclaimed for compensation.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to protect a deposit and provide prescribed information applies not only to the original tenancy but also to any statutory periodic tenancy that arises after the initial fixed term. Until the deposit is properly protected, the landlord cannot serve a valid section 21 notice. The tenant was entitled to compensation.
Key Quotes
"But the legal position after 8 January 2008 must have been that the deposit was held by the landlord as security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations, or for the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the new statutory periodic tenancy, not (or not only) in respect of such obligations or liabilities arising under the original fixed term tenancy."
— Lloyd Jones LJ(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Key authority on deposit protection requirements and their impact on section 21 notices.
The Deregulation Act 2015 partially addressed the issues raised, providing transitional provisions for existing tenancies.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help