Charalambous & Anor v NG & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LADY JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Charalambous and Ms. Karali’s statutory periodic tenancy deposit was never held under a statutory scheme. Mrs. Ng's section 21 notice was thus ruled invalid for non-compliance with the authorized scheme requirements, reversing DJ Manners’ decision and upholding tenant protections.
Judgment
Lord Justice Lewison:
The facts of this case are simple to state. The answer to the legal problem is less so.
Mr Charalambous and Ms Karali took a tenancy of 14 Sapphire Court in Spitalfields on 20 August 2002. The term was for one year less a day expiring on 18 August 2003. Under the terms of their tenancy they paid a deposit of £1,560. The tenancy was renewed on 19 August 2003 and again on 18 August 2004, in each case for a further period of one year. Under each tenancy agreement the same deposit was required to be paid. No further money actually changed hands. Instead the original deposit was carried over and credited against the renewed tenancy. When the last of the tenancies came to an end on 17 August 2005, a statutory periodic tenancy arose under the Housing Act 1988. On 17 October 2012 Mrs Ng served notice under section 21 of that Act requiring possession of the property to be given after 17 December 2012.
The deposit paid by Mr Charalambous and Ms Karali has never been held under a statutory scheme. Was the section 21 notice valid? This is a question that was raised but left unanswered in Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 , [2013] 1 WLR 3848 . In our case DJ Manners was confronted with the question and held that the notice was valid. The tenants now appeal. For the reasons that follow, I would allow their appeal.
Statutory regulation of tenancy deposits was introduced with effect from 6 April 2007 by sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004. The provisions were:
“… designed to put an end to complaints by residential tenants that their deposits had been unreasonably withheld by their landlords at the termination of the lease or, in some cases, had even been misappropriated.” Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi [2011] EWCA Civ 604 , [2011] 4 All ER 556 at [3]
The provisions have since been amended by the Localism Act 2011, and I will need to look at the amendments in due course. The important point to stress at this stage is that by the time when these provisions became effective, the tenancy had already become a statutory periodic tenancy; Mrs Ng already held the deposit; and no further deposit was paid either actually or notionally.
Section 212 (1) of the Housing Act 2004 imposed on the appropriate national authority a duty to make arrangements for securing that one or more tenancy deposit schemes were available for the purpose of safeguarding tenancy deposits paid in connection with shorthold tenancies.