Skip to content

Bedford 01234 303030 | Ampthill 01525 750750

Make a Payment

Landlady forced to pay Tenant £12,600 in addition to returning the deposit

The case of Liaw v Sohal saw the tenant walking away with 7 times as much money as she paid in deposit. This was largely due to the breaches committed by the Landlady.

The Tenant’s Assured Shorthold Tenancy began in October of 2013, the deposit for which was £2,100. The Tenant stayed in the property for 3 years and her Assured Shorthold Tenancy was renewed each year. When the tenant left in October of 2016, the deposit was not returned. The Tenant claimed against the Landlady in order to (a) recover the deposit and (b) penalise her for failing to provide the prescribed information.

For her defence, the Landlady stated that prescribed information was served during the initial tenancy and further explained that no tenancy renewals occurred – claiming that it instead turned into a Statutory Periodic Tenancy. She also counterclaimed for loss of rent due to the short notice that her tenant gave her. Sums were also claimed by the Landlady in respect of the Council Tax due for the notice period, repair costs and costs of administration.

The Court was presented with evidence of a renewal agreement between the parties as well as evidence for prescribed information having been served. However, the Court concluded that the letter presented by the Landlady to prove the service of the prescribed information was not genuine. The Court also accepted the Tenant’s evidence indicating a renewal agreement each year.

It was held that the deposit should be returned to the Tenant. In addition to this, the sum of the penalty payable by the Landlady was held to be twice the value of the deposit (£4,200) and it was further decided that this penalty needed to be paid for each of the 3 renewed tenancies in respect of which prescribed information was not served. With regards to the Landlady’s counterclaim, the Tenant did not have to pay for the excess Council Tax nor for the Landlady’s “loss of rent” due to the short notice. This was because as a Fixed Term Tenancy, the tenancy was to conclude at a specified date – no notice is required. The Tenant also did not have to pay for any administration costs incurred by the Landlady but ultimately did have to pay a negligible sum of £140 for the purchase of a hosepipe and tap.

The stark difference between the deposit and the penalty shows just how vital the service of prescribed information is. As a landowner, it is important to make sure that proper procedure is followed. For help with this or any other landlord and tenant issue, please contact us.

Email Nastassia Khilkevich

Commercial Property eBrief 22 January 2020