Where a landlord failed to protect a tenancy deposit as required by the Housing Act 2004 the tenant was entitled to an award in respect of the original tenancy and an award for the fresh failure at the start of the statutory periodic tenancy.
In (1) Szorad (2) Kozma v Kohli [2023] EW Misc 12 (CC), Judge Johns KC allowed an appeal brought by a tenant against a deputy district judge’s refusal to make multiple awards in respect of an unprotected deposit.
The defendant landlord let 87c Amhurst Road, London, E8 2AH to the claimants for a fixed term of 12 months expiring on 19 July 2020
They continued in occupation beyond the contractual term, vacating on 19 December 2020. A deposit of £1,326.92 had been paid at the outset. It had not been protected and was not returned.
The claimants brought a Part 8 claim seeking the return of the deposit and statutory penalties for the landlord’s failure to protect the deposit.
Relying on Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 they sought multiple awards – one in respect of the failure to protect the deposit at the outset and one for a fresh failure at the start of the periodic tenancy.
The deputy district judge ordered repayment of the deposit and payment of a penalty of three times the deposit but misinterpreted Superstrike and refused to make a further penalty.
The successful appeal confirmed that where a deposit for a fixed term letting has been paid and a statutory periodic tenancy has then arisen, the landlord is liable to multiple statutory penalties if they have failed to protect that deposit in accordance with the statutory requirements.
The amendments introduced by s215B did not alter the availability of multiple awards where the deposit is unprotected.
Although the appeal allowed multiple awards, the penalty for the fresh failure was made at two times the value of the deposit (rather than the maximum three).
It was said that this reduction from the maximum was appropriate because an award of three times the deposit had already been made in relation to the original breach and because it may not have been obvious to the landlord that he was culpable (just as it had not been obvious to the deputy judge).
Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister
