Court Set to Rule on Protected Deposits
With recent changes in legislation affecting the registration of deposits the Court of Appeal is set to rules whether rent paid in advance is a tenant’s deposit and therefore it should be protected by the Tenancy Deposit Scheme.
The case, Johnson V Old, surrounds a payment of six month’s rent paid by the tenant in advance, along with a separate sum which was taken as a deposit and duly protected. The landlord sought possession of the property and issued a section 21 notice to his tenant requiring possession with two month’s notice. The tenant argued that since only part of the deposit had been registered the section 21 notice was invalid.
Brighton Country Court ruled in the tenant’s favour last January but a successful appeal by the landlord subsequently had the ruling over turned saying that advance rent was not a deposit. Now the tenant has opted to take his case to the Court of Appeal.
The central issue for the court to decide must be what constitutes a deposit and whether rent in advance is a deposit which should be protected. The outcome of the case could also give implied or actual guidance as to the question of whether “holding deposits” paid by tenants could also be deposits for the purpose of protection.
The letting industry will be holding its breath awaiting the outcome of the case, which despite being heard in early March may not have judgement for some time after.
Yorkshire Landowners Urged to Tap into Local Authority Development Opportunities
Farmers and landowners have been urged to take advantage of current development opportunities... Read More
Landowners Losing Thousands Due to Poor Management of Export Tariffs
Landowners across the country are failing to maximise their investment due to the poor handli... Read More
Will we see an increase in FBT’s if support payments are capped?
The reform of the CAP in 2005 allowed freedom of cropping/stocking and removed the years of h... Read More