VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord Must Refund Prohibited Payment to Tenant

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a landlord must refund a prohibited payment to a tenant. The case involved a payment of £500 which was deemed a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord must not retain a prohibited payment from a tenant unless it complies with the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Topics

tenancy agreementsprohibited paymentsholding deposits

Provisions

Tenant Fees Act 2019 s.15

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the landlord to refund a prohibited payment to the tenant.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined that a payment of £500 was a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and ordered the landlord to refund the payment to the tenant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00BE/HTC/2020/0017

HMCTS Code : P: Paper remote Property :

2a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[COMPANY] of [NAME] :

For recovery of all or part of a prohibited payment or holding deposit: Tenant Fees Act 2019 Tribunal member :

Tribunal Judge I [NAME] of determination : 23 April 2021 Date of decision :

23 April 2021

DECISION

2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers, which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by the Respondents. The form of remote hearing was P: PAPER REMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no one requested the same. Introduction 1. This is an [NAME] for an order for the recovery of a prohibited

payment/holding deposit paid in respect of a prospective tenancy of

2a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], pursuant to section 15 of the

Tenant Fees Act 2019 (“the Act”).

2. The [NAME] form and supporting documents appear to confirm that

on 3 March 2020 the respondent received payment of £500 from or on

behalf of the applicant, but that, despite requests, the respondent has

not repaid that amount.

3. The payment appears to be a prohibited payment/holding deposit

within the meaning of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (£223.08 prohibited

payment and £276.92 holding deposit, the weekly rent being

apparently £279.92 per week). If so, the Tribunal would be empowered

to order recovery of all or part of that amount from the respondent.

4. The issue to determine whether the Tribunal should make an order

under section 15 of the Act for the respondent to pay all or any part of

the amount to the Applicant.

5. On 26 January 2021, the Tribunal issued directions to the parties. Only the Applicant has complied with the directions and the Respondent has not engaged at all in these proceedings.

6. Therefore, the [NAME] proceeds on the basis of the evidence filed by the Applicant.

[NAME]

7. This is set out in the Appendix annexed hereto.

Decision

8. The determination of the [NAME] took place on 23 April 2021 without an oral hearing. It was based solely on the statement of case and other documentary evidence filed by the Applicant.

9. Under the terms of the Act, landlords and [NAME] must not require tenants (including prospective tenants and guarantors) to make

3 any prohibited payments. In short a payment is a "prohibited payment" unless it is a permitted payment as listed in Schedule 1 of the Act below.

10. A landlord may seek a holding deposit from a prospective tenant to reserve a property, however, such holding deposit must be repaid within 7 days of the landlord and tenant either:

(a) Entering into a tenancy agreement,

(b) The landlord decides not to enter into a tenancy agreement; or

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

by the deadline.

11. The Act provides that the deadline for the landlord and prospective

tenant to enter into a tenancy agreement is 15 days and where this does

not happen the landlord will have to repay the holding deposit to the

prospective tenant within 7 days. The Act does, however, permit a

landlord and prospective tenant to agree in writing a different deadline

rather than 15 days. 12. A landlord can only retain a tenant’s holding deposit if they provide

false or misleading information which reasonably affects the decision

to let the property to them, they fail a right to rent check, withdraw

from the proposed agreement or fail to take all reasonable steps to

enter an agreement when the landlord and/or agent has done so.

However, where a landlord or letting agent seeks to retain a holding

deposit it must serve a notice on the payee of the deposit setting out the

grounds on which it intends to keep the deposit. Failure to serve the

requisite notice within the time limits prescribed (normally seven days)

will mean that the landlord or letting agent will forfeit their right to

keep the same.

13. On the basis of the evidence provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal made the following findings of fact:

(a) that the Applicant paid a holding deposit to the Respondent on

3 March 2020 for the rental of the subject property in the sum of

£500.

(b) that one week’s rent for the property was £300.

(c) that the payment of £500 represented more than one week’s

rent in breach of paragraph 3(3) in Schedule 1 below of the Act.

(d) that the Applicant withdrew from the proposed tenancy

agreement.

(e) that the Respondent failed to serve a notice on the Applicant

setting out the grounds on which it intended to withhold the

holding deposit and, therefore, forfeited the right to do so.

4

(f) that the Respondent has failed to return the Applicant’s payment

of £500 within 15 days of the payment made by the

Applicant. 14. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the payment of £500 to the Respondent was a prohibited payment within the meaning of paragraph 3(3) in Schedule 1 to the Act. 15. Accordingly, the Tribunal made an order under section 15 (9) of the Act for the Respondent to refund the payment of £500 to the Applicant not less than 14 days from service of this decision on him.

Name: Tribunal Judge I [NAME]: 23 April 2021 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] 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).

5 Appendix of [NAME] legislation SCHEDULE 1 Permitted payments

Holding deposit 3(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (6), a payment of a holding deposit is a permitted payment. (2) In this Act “holding deposit” means money which is paid by or on behalf of a tenant to a landlord or letting agent before the grant of a tenancy with the intention that it should be dealt with by the landlord or letting agent in accordance with Schedule 2 (treatment of holding deposit). (3) If the amount of the holding deposit exceeds one week’s rent, the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment. (4) In sub-paragraph (3) “one week’s rent” means the amount of the annual rent payable in respect of the tenancy immediately after its grant, renewal or continuance divided by 52. (5) A payment of a holding deposit is not a permitted payment if— (a) the landlord or letting agent to whom the deposit was paid has previously received a holding deposit (“the earlier deposit”) in relation to the same housing, (b) the landlord or letting agent has not repaid all or part of the earlier deposit, and (c) none of paragraphs 6 to 12 of Schedule 2 have applied so as to permit the landlord or letting agent not to repay the earlier deposit or the part that has not been repaid. (6) The reference in sub-paragraph (5)(a) to a landlord or letting agent receiving a holding deposit does not include the landlord or letting agent doing so before the coming into force of Schedule 2.

15. Recovery by [NAME] of amount paid (1) Subsection (3) applies where— (a) a landlord or a letting agent breaches section 1 or 2, as a result of which the landlord or letting agent, or a third party, receives a prohibited payment from a [NAME], and (b) all or part of the prohibited payment has not been repaid to the [NAME].

6 (2) Subsection (3) also applies where— (a) a landlord or letting agent breaches Schedule 2 in relation to a holding deposit paid by a [NAME], and (b) all or part of the holding deposit has not been repaid to the [NAME]. (3) The [NAME] may make an [NAME] to the First-tier Tribunal for the recovery from the landlord or letting agent of— (a) if none of the prohibited payment or holding deposit has been repaid to the [NAME], the amount of the prohibited payment or holding deposit; (b) if part of the prohibited payment or holding deposit has been repaid to the [NAME], the remaining part of the prohibited payment or holding deposit. (4) Subsection (5) applies where— (a) a landlord or letting agent breaches section 1 or 2, as a result of which a [NAME] enters into a contract with a third party, and (b) the [NAME] has made a payment or payments under the contract. (5) The [NAME] may make an [NAME] to the First-tier Tribunal for the recovery from the landlord or letting agent of the amount of the payment or (as the case may be) the aggregate amount of the payments that the [NAME] has made. (6) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a prohibited payment or holding deposit if or to the extent that, with the consent of the [NAME]— (a) the prohibited payment or holding deposit, or the remaining part of it, has been applied towards a payment of rent under the tenancy, or (b) the prohibited payment or holding deposit, or the remaining part of it, has been applied towards the tenancy deposit in respect of the tenancy. (7) Subsection (3) or (5) does not apply where an enforcement authority has commenced criminal proceedings against the landlord or the letting agent for the same breach. (8) Subsection (3) or (5) does not apply where an enforcement authority has required the landlord or letting agent to pay to the [NAME] all or part of the amount or (as the case may be) the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection.

7 (9) On an [NAME] under subsection (3) or (5), the First-tier Tribunal may order the landlord or the letting agent to pay all or any part of the amount or (as the case may be) the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection to the [NAME] within the period specified in the order. (10) A period specified under subsection (9) must be a period of at least 7 days but not more than 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the order is made. (11) An order of the First-tier Tribunal under this section is enforceable by order of the county court as if the amount payable under the order were payable under an order of that court.

📊 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 accepted

  • The applicant paid a holding deposit of £500 to the respondent for the rental property.
  • The payment of £500 was more than one week's rent, which is a breach of the Act.
  • The respondent failed to serve a notice explaining why they intended to keep the deposit, losing their right to do so.
  • The respondent did not return the £500 payment within 15 days of receiving it.
  • The Tribunal was satisfied that the £500 payment was a prohibited payment under the Act.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered the landlord to refund a prohibited payment to the tenant.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the payment was a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and ordered the landlord to refund it.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the payment exceeded one week's rent and thus was a prohibited payment.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any payments made comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the application form and supporting documents showing the payment and the landlord's failure to repay it.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving tenant fees.

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.