Michael Williams, instructed on behalf of a landlord, successfully defended a claim brought by two former tenants under sections 213 and 214 of the Housing Act 2004 in the County Court at Central London.
The tenants sought a penalty of twice their deposit, arguing that the prescribed information was invalid because the landlord had signed the certificate before receiving the deposit.
Michael argued that the legislation regulates when prescribed information must be provided, not when the certificate must be signed. The information had been provided after receipt of the deposit, within the statutory 30-day period, and was accurate when provided.
The Court accepted Michael’s submissions and dismissed the claim. The Recorder held that the relevant time for assessing compliance was when the information was provided to the tenants, rather than when the certificate was signed. The earlier signing of the certificate did not invalidate its subsequent provision.
The decision provides a useful illustration of the distinction between the signing and provision of prescribed information under the tenancy deposit legislation, the date of such signing not being prescribed information.