If you are the owner of a ‘buy to let’ property, arecent case highlights the dangers that may result from offering shorthold tenancies that fail to comply with the regulations relating to tenants’ deposits.
Most landlords who have tenants on assured shorthold tenancies will be aware of their obligations to tenants with regard to the protection of their deposits and the provision of information to tenants regarding the chosen tenancy deposit scheme.
The compliance regime for landlords seems very rigorous, as a penalty of three times the deposit can be levied for failing to comply with the rules of the scheme. A recent court case established, however, that landlords cannot be subject to a penalty for non-compliance with the rules regarding the holding of deposits provided that they take the necessary action before the matter comes to court. It would be understandable, therefore, if landlords considered that there was a similarly relaxed attitude regarding the provision of the required information.
However, a landlord who failed to provide a tenant with information on the deposit protection scheme in use was recently made to pay the triple penalty, despite the fact that by the time the case came to court the tenancy had ended and the deposit had been returned to the tenant.
Landlords beware!
If you require advice on any aspect of landlord and tenant law, contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>>.
Partner Note
Suurpere v Nice and another [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB). See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2003.html.