By Steve Roulstone
There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.
Joint action required.
The case failed in the full award of the penalty as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!
Part returned Deposit.
Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.
Further appeal.
I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government
There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.
Joint action required.
The case failed in the full award as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!
Part returned Deposit.
Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.
Further appeal.
I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government
Pingback: Krav Maga