Tenant Wins Return of Holding Deposit Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord must return a holding deposit to a tenant if a tenancy agreement is not reached within the deadline set by law. In this case, the tenant was entitled to the return of an £800 deposit under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the return of a holding deposit if a tenancy agreement is not entered into within the deadline set by the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal ordered the landlord to return a holding deposit to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal ordered the landlord to repay a holding deposit of £800 to the tenant within seven days, as the deadline for entering into a tenancy agreement had passed without agreement. Judge Tagliavini ruled that the deposit was a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/0oAJ/HTC/2024/0003 Property : 11 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] : N/A Respondents : [redacted] : N/A 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 : 11 June 2024
DECISION
2
Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal directs the respondent to repay to the applicant the sum of
£800 within 7 days of this decision being sent to the parties. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] for an order for the recovery of a holding deposit
in respect of a proposed tenancy of 11 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the property’) pursuant to section 15 of the Tenant Fees Act
2019 (‘the 2019 Act’).
The background 2. The applicant’s case is that during negotiations for the room, the
landlord failed to disclose a clause requiring a payment for any guests
that stayed in the property, and despite requests, the £800 deposit paid
by the tenant has not been returned. The tenant says that the landlord
has reclassified the deposit as a business (diverging) expense. The
dispute therefore concerns the £800.00 paid. The applicants’ case 3. In his [NAME] form, the applicant states he viewed the room at 17:00 on 10/11/23 and expressed interest in renting it at 19:29 the same day.
Ms. [NAME] instructed me to pay a £800 deposit in order for
viewings to cease cand to provide a passport copy for contract
preparation. The deposit was paid on either the 11th or 12th November
2023 and receipt confirmed. Upon receiving the contract, the applicant
I found an undisclosed clause which stated:
‘A guest is welcome and is charged £30 per night.’ 4. The applicant requested a modification to the clause, but Ms. [APPELLANT]
[NAME] refused. Within two days of 12th November 2023, the applicant
declined to proceed with the tenancy and requested a reasonable
amount of the deposit be refunded. 5. Ms. [NAME] response suggested the refund depended on finding a new tenant. On 11/12/23, she proposed retaining £500 for December's vacancy, requesting my bank details for the remaining £300. I consulted Citizens' Advice, who highlighted that the holding deposit exceeded legal limits under the Tenant Fees Act and that the guest charge
3 clause seemed unlawful. I explained this to Ms. [NAME] who then Ms.
[NAME] then classified the deposit as "business diverging" due
to not signing the contract and claimed a business loss for December. 5. The applicant then demanded a full refund and the respondent’s
response included false claims about previously disclosing the guest
charge and showing the contract during viewing. The respondents’ case 6. In an email response dated 4 March 2024, the respondent stated there
has never been relationship lodger-landlord with the applicant, as no
rent contract was signed. The plan of renting a bedroom at my property
was changed by Mr [NAME] after 3 days of paying £850 as a booking
fees obliged me to cancel 3 other viewings scheduled for the next couple
of days.
7. The respondent assert that because Mr [RESPONDENT] has changed his mind (the template of contract was presented to him during his viewing), I
advised him that the booking fees will be decreased by £100 if I find the
lodger from the 1st of December 2023.Unfortunately I was able to find a lodger only from the 1st of January 2023, that is why I have proposed to Mr [NAME] reimbursement of his booking fees at the amount of £300 (I have lost 1.5 month of rent @ £1350 per month because of Mr
[NAME] change of mind). He has never sent me his bank details
despite my numerous requests.
Reasons for the tribunal’s decision
8. The relevant parts (in bold) of Schedule 2 (holding deposit) of the 2019 Act state:
1 This Schedule applies where a holding deposit is paid
to a landlord or letting 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 letting agent
receives the holding deposit.
(2) But the landlord or the letting 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
4
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.
8. The tribunal finds as the landlord (respondent) and tenant
(applicant) failed to enter in an agreement by 26th November 223,being
the deadline for the agreement, paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 applies.
Therefore, the holding deposit is repayable in full by the respondent
by 26th November 2023.
9. The tribunal directs the respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of
£800 being the sum paid by way of a holding deposit and is a
prohibited payment of Schedule 2 of the 2019 Act.
Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 11 June 2024
5
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).
📊 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) Landlord Ordered to Repay Holding Deposit Exceeding One Week's Rent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Refund in First-tier Tribunal Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Holding Deposit Return in First-tier Tribunal Case
- 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 Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Holding Deposit Return Under Tenant Fees Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Handling Fee Ruled as Prohibited Payment Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Repayment of Holding Deposit Under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs After Deemed Withdrawal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant denied return of holding deposit under Tenant Fees Act 2019
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal dismisses claim for holding deposit return
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 tenancy agreement was not entered into within the deadline set by the Act.
- The holding deposit did not exceed one week's rent.
- A handling fee charged by a letting agent was identified as a prohibited payment under the Act.
- The landlord failed to enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline for agreement.
- The 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.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to enter into a tenancy agreement within the stipulated time.
- The landlord and tenant took all reasonable steps but could not enter into a tenancy agreement within the deadline.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The landlord must repay a holding deposit of £800 to the tenant.
Who was involved?
A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over a holding deposit.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the deposit was a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, and must be returned since no tenancy agreement was reached.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Tenant Fees Act 2019 was applied, specifically regarding holding deposits.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the holding deposit exceeded legal limits and was not returned as required by law.
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 holding deposits comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and seek legal action if necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The contract and the communication between the tenant and landlord regarding the holding deposit were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes.
