North v Tyndale

The case of North v Tyndale explored the validity of a s21 notice under the Housing Act 2004 in cases where there is a lapse in statutory compliance regarding the deposit.

In this case, Ms T was a tenant of an assured shorthold tenancy and Ms N was the landlady. A deposit of £1300 was given by Ms T. However, the deposit was not protected for the first 6 months of tenancy. Furthermore, when the tenancy became statutory periodic in 2014, Ms N failed to renew the deposit protection until 3 years later in 2017.

Later that year, Ms N served a s21 notice to Ms T. The tenant challenged this on the grounds that the s21 notice was rendered invalid by Ms N failing to arrange deposit protection continuously. In the hearing, Ms N conceded that there was no deposit protection initially but relied on s215B(1)(b) of the 2004 Act and stated that the delay in deposit protection had no effect as prescribed information was provided.

Ms T conversely relied on s215B(1)(f) and argued that this section does not apply due to the lapse of deposit protection between 2014 and 2017. In response to this, Ms N argued that because the deposit was protected for the 30 days leading up to the end of the fixed term tenancy, she had complied with the provisions under s215B(1)(f).

DJ Desai decided against Ms N and held that the s21 notice was invalid due to the reasons stated by Ms T and her counsel.

This case shows the importance of ensuring that deposit protection is properly arranged in compliance with statutory requirements. If you need help regarding this or any other landlord & tenant issue, please contact:

Email Simon Parrott

Email Nastassia Khilkevich

Property eBrief 11 October 2019