VadeLab
RefusedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Application for Holding Deposit Refund Rejected Due to False Information

Case No.

📌 In brief

The claimant asked for the return of a holding deposit but was denied because they didn’t disclose their bad credit history. The First-tier Tribunal ruled against the claimant.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is not entitled to recover a holding deposit if they provide false or misleading information to the landlord or a person agent.

Topics

holding depositsTenant Fees Act 2019credit checks

Provisions

Tenant Fees Act 2019 s.15Tenant Fees Act 2019 Schedule 2

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's a person for recovery of a holding deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant sought recovery of a holding deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The tribunal found the claimant failed to disclose adverse credit history and dismissed the application.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Refused

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AB/HTC/2024/0007 Property :

279 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : I/P Respondent : [redacted] [COUNSEL] : N/K Type of [NAME] : For recovery of all or part of a prohibited payment or holding deposit: Tenant Fees Act 2019 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 6 August 2024

DECISION

2 The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal determines the first and/or second respondents are not

required to repay the holding deposit of £403 to the applicant, due to the

failure to disclose adverse information para. 9 of Schedule 2 of The

Tenancy Fees Act 2019 applies. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] for an order for the recovery of a holding deposit paid in respect of a tenancy of 16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] pursuant to section 15 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Background 2. The applicant asserts that she paid and the respondent received on or

around 23 December 2023, payment of £403.00 from or on behalf of

the applicant in respect of a holding deposit as a prospective tenant

with her partner [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME], of premises situate at 16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. Despite requests, the respondent

has not repaid the outstanding holding deposit when the tenancy did not

proceed. The hearing 3. Neither party requested an oral hearing and therefore the tribunal

determined the [NAME] on the documents both parties had

submitted to the tribunal. The applicant’s case 4. The applicant relied upon her [NAME] form and the copies of her

bank statement showing proof of payment of £403 to the respondent. In

the [NAME] the applicant stated:

WE HAD A VIEWING IN A PROPERTY WE WANTED TO RENT.

THE AGENT ASKED US TO PAY A HOLDING DEPOSIT OF

£403 TO SECURE THE PROPERTY AND 2 WEEKS AFTER

CALL ME TO EXPLAIN THAT THE LANDLORD DOESN’T

ACCEPT US BECAUSE OF THE BAD CREDIT CHECK.

INSTEAD TO RETURN THE HOLDING DEPOSIT THE AGENTS

EMAILED ME TO SIGN ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOR THE

DEPOSIT OF £403 TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PROPERTY

WHICH WE NEVER SEEN . THEY TOLD US IF WE DON’T

WANT THE SECOND PROPERTY TO PAY AND MOVE

3

(WITHOUTH VIEW) OUR DEPOSIT IS NOT REFUNDABLE.

AFTER THAT THEY BLOCK US NOT TO CALL OR EMAIL

THEM The respondents’ case 5. The applicant made a payment of £403.00 as a holding/reservation

deposit for 16, [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE], after which referencing process

commenced and final reports from a third party referencing company

(attached on showed adverse credit history on both the applicant’s and

their partner’s report. In advance of the applicant’s holding deposit

payment was made to [NAME], the applicant received a holding deposit

message. This message clearly states that if any details, provided by the

applicant, are misleading or untrue/inaccurate, the holding deposit is

non-refundable. 6. The applicant confirmed the details she had provided to the respondent

were correct by [NAME] the holding deposit payment and by failing to

declare any adverse credit history. Subsequently, the applicant and her

partner failed the credit check and are therefore not entitled to a refund

of their reservation deposit of £403.00 The tribunal’s reasons 1. The tribunal finds the following:

(i) The applicant paid a deposit of £403 in respect of a holding

deposit for a tenancy of 16 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE].

(ii) The deposit was paid on or around 29/12/2023 to the first

respondent [NAME].

(iii) In a document entitled HOLDINF (RESERVATION) DEPOSIT

RECEIPT. The respondents asserted the deposit of £403 was non-

refundable if the tenant fails referencing or credit checks.

(iv) The applicant and her partner failed the credit checks on or about

27 and 28 December 2023 and a tenancy agreement for the

subject property at a rent of £1,7500 pcm was not entered into by

the parties.

(v) The applicant failed to disclose any adverse credit history on

behalf of herself and her partner to the respondent.

(vi) The credit checks carried out by an [NAME]

revealed the applicant and her partner had an adverse credit

history.

4 7. The Tenancy Fees Act 2019 (‘the 2019 Act) sets out what are permitted

and prohibited payments that can/cannot be charged by a

landlord/[NAME] agent to a tenant or person in connection with a tenancy

of housing. Schedule 2 of 2019 Act deals with the treatment of holding

deposits the relevant parts of which states:

1 This Schedule applies where a holding deposit is paid to a

landlord or [NAME] agent in respect of a proposed tenancy of

housing in England.

2(1) In this Schedule “the deadline for agreement” means the

fifteenth day of the period beginning with the day on which the

landlord or [NAME] agent receives the holding deposit.

(2) But the landlord or the [NAME] agent may agree with the

tenant in writing that a different day is to be the deadline for

agreement for the purposes of this Schedule.

Requirement to repay holding deposit

3 Subject as follows, the person who received the holding deposit

must repay it if—

(a)the landlord and the tenant enter into a tenancy agreement

relating to the housing,

(b)the landlord decides before the deadline for agreement not to

enter into a tenancy agreement relating to the housing, or

(c)the landlord and the tenant fail to enter into a tenancy

agreement relating to the housing before the deadline for

agreement.

4If paragraph 3 applies, the deposit must be repaid within the

period of 7 days beginning with—

(a)where paragraph 3(a) applies, the date of the tenancy

agreement,

(b)where paragraph 3(b) applies, the date on which the landlord

decides not to enter into the tenancy agreement, or

(c)where paragraph 3(c) applies, the deadline for agreement.

5(1)The person who received the holding deposit must repay it

if—

5

(a)[NAME] believes that any of paragraphs 8 to 12 applies in

relation to the deposit, but

(b)[NAME] does not give the person who paid the

deposit a notice in writing within the relevant period explaining

why the person who received it intends not to repay it.

(2)In sub-paragraph (1) “the relevant period” means—

(a)where the landlord decides not to enter into a tenancy

agreement before the deadline for agreement, the period of 7

days beginning with the date on which the landlord decides not

to do so;

(b)where the landlord and tenant fail to enter into a tenancy

days beginning with the deadline for agreement.

9 Paragraph 3(b) or (c) does not apply if the tenant provides

false or misleading information to the landlord or [NAME] agent

and—

(a) the landlord is reasonably entitled to take into account the

difference between the information provided by the tenant and

the correct information in deciding whether to grant a tenancy

to the tenant, or

(b) the landlord is reasonably entitled to take the tenant's action

in providing false or misleading information into account in

deciding whether to grant such a tenancy. 8. The tribunal finds the applicant failed to disclose her adverse credit

history and that of her partner to the respondents. The tribunal also finds

the landlord was entitled to take into account the true financial position

of the applicant in deciding whether or not to enter into a tenancy

agreement. 9. In conclusion, the tribunal finds the respondent is not required to repay

the £403 holding deposit to the applicant. 10. Therefore, the [NAME] is refused.

Name: Judge Tagliavini

Date: 6 August 2024

6

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-toappeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant provided false or misleading information to the landlord or letting agent.
  • The landlord had the right to retain the holding deposit due to the tenant's misinformation.
  • There was insufficient evidence to support an increase in the baseline pitch fee.
  • Service charges were deemed reasonable and thus payable.
  • The tenant failed to prove the landlord's offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The tribunal did not find it necessary to order reimbursement of fees.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant's application for recovery of a holding deposit was dismissed.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the landlord/letting agent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided against the claimant because they failed to disclose their adverse credit history.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 and its Schedule 2.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's failure to disclose adverse credit history.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

Against the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone who provides false or misleading information to a landlord or letting agent may not be able to recover a holding deposit.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The claimant's bank statements and the holding deposit receipt.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving holding deposits.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.