Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Return Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord must return a holding deposit to a tenant if they do not enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline and the landlord does not provide the required notice within seven days.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the return of a holding deposit if the landlord and tenant do not enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline and the landlord fails to provide the required notice.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to return a holding deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the landlord must return the holding deposit to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 because the landlord failed to provide the required notice within the specified timeframe.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AU/HTC/2022/0004 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] application : For recovery of all or part of a prohibited payment or holding deposit: Tenant Fees Act 2019 Tribunal : Judge [NAME] : 18th July 2022
DECISION
The Respondent must repay to the Applicant the holding deposit of £207.69. Reasons 1. On 25th March 2022 the Applicant signed a New Tenancy Application with the Respondent and paid a holding deposit equal to one week’s rent, namely £207.69.
2. However, the Applicant decided not to go ahead when the Respondent insisted that she should pay her deposit and rent in advance before she signed the actual tenancy agreement. Now she would like her holding deposit returned. In accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, this dispute has been decided on the papers, without a hearing.
3. Under paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 2 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, the person who received the holding deposit must repay it if the landlord and the tenant fail to enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline for agreement, subject to certain exceptions set out in the rest
2 of Schedule 2, including in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. The deadline for agreement is defined in paragraph 2(1) as the 15th day of the period beginning with the day on which the holding deposit was received.
4. Both parties have sought to argue their cases on the basis that the exceptions in paragraphs 10-12 may be relevant. However, there is an additional requirement in paragraph 5 which both parties appear to have overlooked.
5. Under paragraph 5, the person who received the holding deposit must repay it if they believe that any of paragraphs 8-12 of Schedule 2 apply and they don’t give the person who paid the deposit a notice in writing explaining why the holding deposit is not being repaid. In the case where the landlord and the tenant fail to enter into a tenancy agreement, that notice must be given within 7 days of the deadline for agreement, i.e. 22 days after the holding deposit was paid.
6. There is no evidence that either party was aware of the obligation to provide such notice, let alone that such notice was provided.
7. The Respondent did ultimately provide their reasons for retaining the holding deposit in an email to the Tribunal dated 27th June 2022 which constituted their statement of case for the purposes of these proceedings. However, that is a long time after the relevant period for the notice had expired.
8. The lack of such a notice within the relevant period means that the Respondent is obliged to repay the Applicant her holding deposit, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Applicant’s decision not to proceed with the tenancy.
Name: Judge Nicol Date: 18th July 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Return of Holding Deposit Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Return Due to Technical Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Repayment Due to Lack of Timely Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Repayment of Holding Deposit Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Tenancy Deposit Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation From Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules in favour of RTM Company at Fourways House
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Decision on Service and Administration Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on service charges for tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Essential Waterproofing Works
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 respondent was required to repay the holding deposit because the landlord and tenant did not enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline.
- The respondent had to repay the deposit because they did not provide a written notice explaining why the deposit was not being repaid.
- The respondent's email to the Tribunal explaining their reasons for retaining the deposit was sent too late to count as the required notice.
- The lack of a timely notice meant the respondent had to repay the deposit, regardless of the applicant's reasons for not proceeding with the tenancy.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The parties' arguments about exceptions in paragraphs 10-12 of Schedule 2 were not considered because they overlooked the additional requirement of notice.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the landlord must return the holding deposit 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 landlord must return the holding deposit because the landlord did not provide the required notice within seven days of the deadline.
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 whether the landlord provided the required notice within seven days of the deadline.
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 the landlord provides the required notice within seven days of the deadline to avoid losing their holding deposit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the date the holding deposit was paid and the date the deadline for agreement passed.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.