Case Law & Prescribed Information
Siddeeq v Alaian. K00BF465 County Court at Mayor’s and City of London County Court. HHJ Hellman. 9 August 2024 (unreported).
A County Court Circuit Judge appeal from a possession claim at Brentford County Court, on the validity of a section 21 notice due to arguments over the deposit prescribed information. The key question was whether information given by the landlord could be ‘prescribed information’ in relation to the deposit if it was given to the tenant before the deposit was paid.
The tenancy agreement on this AST was signed on 12 November 2021. The tenancy agreement, as is common, had a section setting out various items of the ‘tenancy deposit prescribed information’ and stated the deposit value. The end statement of the agreement said that the signature was the landlord’s certification of the information, and the tenant’s confirmation of its accuracy to the best of their knowledge. A Mydeposits scheme leaflet was provided with the tenancy agreement.
The deposit was paid by the tenant on 13 November 2021. The deposit was protected on about 19 November 2021 and the deposit protection certificate provided to the tenant, although not signed by either.
So the only signature as to the accuracy of the prescribed information where those of the landlord and the tenant on the tenancy agreement, signed before the deposit was paid.
The landlord served a section 21 notice on 3 November 2022 and a possession claim via the accelerated procedure issued on 24 April 2023. A defence was served. At first instance trial the District Judge held that the prescribed information could be given before the deposit was paid. The tenant sought permission to appeal, which was granted by HHJ Luba KC.
Gas Safety Case Law - Van-Herpen v Green & Green
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
The issue of gas safety certificates has been revisited again in Van-Herpen v Green & Green (2023) County Court at Hastings, 4 December 2023. The questions for the court were whether a Building Regulations Compliance Certificate (“BRCC”) from the installation of a boiler or a Gas Safety Certificate (“GSC”) arising out of a plumber’s visit some two months later had to be served for a section 21 notice to be valid.
Van-Herpen v Green & Green. Hastings County Court. 17 November 2023 (judgment 4 December 2023)
Van-Herpen involved a claim by the Landlord for possession under the section 21 accelerated procedure. The Tenants took up occupation of the Property in September 2018 under an assured shorthold tenancy. The day after they took up occupation of the Property, a new boiler was installed – the previous one having been removed some months prior. The gas safety engineer, commissioned the new boiler and, in the process of doing so, “safety checked” the boiler and checked for “integrity of the flue gases” in line with the manufacturer’s installation specifications. The engineer created a BRCC for the boiler; however, this was never served on the tenants before the service of the section 21 notice.
No DSS bans 'Ruled' Unlawful by Court
As many of you will be aware Shelter have been encouraging DSS (DWP) applicants to challenge agents for some time. There was an out of court settlement made to an applicant in 2018.
As a consequence, as often happens, a case was brought before York County Court on 1 July involving a letting agent who had a blanket ban on DSS applicants. District Judge Victoria Mark ruled: "Rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of housing benefit was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability contrary to Sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010”.