Round #1113

Deposit of £1,200 was protected within 14 days in the DPS custodial scheme. The prescribed information given to the tenant lists the landlord as "J. Patel" but the landlord's full name on the AST is "Jaspreet Singh Patel" and the address for service shown is the letting agent's office rather than the landlord's own address. Tenant has been served Section 21. Is the prescribed information defective for the purposes of section 213(6) Housing Act 2004?

# Prescribed Information Deficiency Analysis ## Statutory Framework Under **section 213(5) and (6) Housing Act 2004**, a landlord must give the tenant **prescribed information** in accordance with the requirements of the scheme and regulations. The relevant regulations are the **Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007 (SI 2007/797)**. --- ## The Two Alleged Defects ### 1. Name: "J. Patel" vs "Jaspreet Singh Patel" **Article 2(1)(b)** of the 2007 Order requires the prescribed information to include: > *"the name, address and telephone number of the landlord"* **The core question is whether "J. Patel" constitutes sufficient identification of the landlord.** #### Relevant Case Law - **Ayannuga v Swindells** [2012] EWCA Civ 1789 — Court of Appeal confirmed that **strict compliance** is required with the prescribed information requirements, not merely substantial compliance. - **Suurpere v Nice** [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) — failures in prescribed information were taken seriously even where deposit was protected. - **Leaseholders of Foundling Court v Camden LBC** [2016] UKUT 366 — emphasised precision in landlord identification. **Analysis:** An abbreviated name **"J. Patel"** rather than the full legal name **"Jaspreet Singh Patel"** appearing on the executed AST is a **material discrepancy**. The prescribed information must identify *the landlord* — the person with whom the tenant has contracted. "J. Patel" is: - Not the landlord's name as known from the tenancy agreement - Potentially ambiguous (could be any number of persons with that initial and surname) - Arguably insufficient for the tenant to verify who holds their deposit or to whom notices must be given This is **likely defective**. A court applying *Ayannuga* strict compliance would find that an abbreviated name which does not match the landlord's legal name on the AST fails to meet Article 2(1)(b). --- ### 2. Address for Service: Agent's Address vs Landlord's Own Address **Article 2(1)(b)** requires the **landlord's** name and address. It does not provide that an agent's address may be substituted unless that address is properly the landlord's address for service by virtue of the tenancy agreement or an agency arrangement that has been **disclosed to the tenant within the prescribed information itself**. #### Relevant Case Law - **Charalambous v Ng** [2014] EWCA Civ 1604 — the prescribed information must be accurate and complete. - **Staunton v Taylor** (County Court) and various first-instance decisions have found agent addresses **problematic** where not properly identified as such. - **Article 2(1)(g)** of the 2007 Order separately requires information about any **relevant person** (agent) and their details — the structure of the Order contemplates a distinction between landlord and agent addresses. **Analysis:** If the prescribed information simply shows the *letting agent's office address* as the landlord's address **without identifying it as an agent's address**, this is **defective** because: - It misrepresents the landlord's address - It denies the tenant the ability to contact the actual landlord - It conflates the landlord and agent in a way the Order does not permit - The tenant cannot serve notices or pursue claims against the correct party at the correct address If the prescribed information **identifies the address as c/o the agent**, that would be a lesser concern — but a bare substitution of the agent's address for the landlord's own address without explanation is a failure to comply with Article 2(1)(b). --- ## Cumulative Effect and Section 21 ### Consequence of Defective Prescribed Information Under **section 215(1) Housing Act 2004** (as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and Renters Reform amendments): > Where section 213(6) has not been complied with, **a section 21 notice cannot be given** until the prescribed information requirements are met **or** the deposit is repaid (or repaid save for any portion the tenant agrees may be retained). Key points: - **Section 215(2A)** (inserted by Deregulation Act 2015): a landlord cannot serve a valid s.21 notice unless the prescribed information obligations have been fulfilled. - Protecting the deposit within 14 days **does not cure** defective prescribed information — these are **separate obligations**. - The landlord cannot simply re-serve the prescribed information and then immediately serve s.21 (there may need to be a gap — though case law is not entirely settled on immediate re-service). ### Can It Be Remedied? Yes — under **section 213(6A)** as amended, it is **possible to re-serve compliant prescribed information** and then subsequently serve a valid s.21. However: - The **currently served s.21 notice is invalid** if the prescribed information was defective at the time of service - The landlord would need to **serve fresh compliant prescribed information** and then **serve a fresh s.21 notice** - The tenant may also have a **separate claim for penalties** under s.214 (1x to 3x the deposit amount) by reason of the defective prescribed information, though courts have been less consistent where deposit *was* protected --- ## Conclusion | Issue | Assessment | |---|---| | Abbreviated name "J. Patel" | **Likely defective** — fails strict compliance under Art 2(1)(b) 2007 Order | | Agent's address as landlord's address | **Likely defective** — misidentifies landlord's address contrary to Art 2(1)(b) | | Deposit protected within 14 days | **Compliant** — s.213(3) satisfied | | Section 21 notice validity | **Invalid** — s.215(1) bars s.21 where prescribed information not compliant | | Penalty claim (s.214) | **Potentially available** to tenant | **The prescribed information is almost certainly defective on both grounds.** The Section 21 notice served is therefore invalid and unenforceable unless and until the landlord: 1. Serves **fully compliant prescribed information** (correct full name, correct landlord address) 2. **Re-serves the Section 21 notice** after doing so The tenant has strong grounds to **defend possession proceedings** and to consider a **counter-claim for the statutory penalty** under section 214. --- *This analysis is based on the law of England. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish provisions differ. This does not constitute legal advice.*

## Prescribed Information Defects — s.213(6) Housing Act 2004 --- ### Relevant Legal Framework Under **s.213(5)–(6) Housing Act 2004**, a landlord who receives a tenancy deposit must, within **30 days** of receipt: 1. Protect the deposit in an **authorised scheme** (s.213(3)); and 2. Give the tenant the **prescribed information** in accordance with the scheme's requirements (s.213(5)–(6)). The prescribed information requirements are set out in **Article 2 of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007 (SI 2007/797)**. Under Art.2(b), the prescribed information must include: - The landlord's **name and contact details** (Art.2(b)(ii)); - The landlord's, or the landlord's agent's, **address** (Art.2(b)(ii)(bb)). Failure to comply with s.213(6) triggers two consequences directly relevant to the Section 21 notice: - The **Section 21 gate** is closed — a Section 21 notice cannot be validly served while non-compliance persists: **s.215(1) Housing Act 2004**; - The tenant may apply for a **penalty order** of 1–3× the deposit value under s.214. --- ### Issue 1: Abbreviated Name ("J. Patel" vs "Jaspreet Singh Patel") The Order requires the landlord's **name**. Using an initial rather than a full name is not automatically fatal, but the test is whether the information is **sufficiently clear to identify** the landlord and enable the tenant to contact or pursue them. **Notably**, in ***Charalambous v Ng*** [2014] EWCA Civ 1604 and ***Ayannuga v Swindells*** [2012] EWCA Civ 1789, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the prescribed information must **strictly comply** with the Order — it cannot be read as satisfied by substantial compliance alone. The information must be **accurate**. Where the AST clearly names "Jaspreet Singh Patel" as the landlord, providing "J. Patel" in the prescribed information is: - **Potentially ambiguous** (there could be more than one J. Patel); - **Inconsistent** with the formal contractual document. The safer conclusion, given the strict compliance standard, is that this **creates a defect**, albeit one a court might treat as minor in isolation. Taken with Issue 2, the aggregate effect is more serious. --- ### Issue 2: Address for Service — Agent's Office vs Landlord's Own Address This is the **more clearly defective** element. Art.2(b)(ii)(bb) of the 2007 Order requires the **landlord's** name and **address**. Where a letting agent is involved, the agent's details may additionally be provided, but they do **not substitute** for the landlord's own address unless the landlord has no fixed address of their own (not suggested here). In ***Livemore v Simons*** and the county court line of cases following ***Suurpere v Nice*** [2011] EWHC 2003, courts have found that providing an agent's address **in place of** the landlord's address constitutes non-compliance with the prescribed information requirements. The tenant must be able to identify and contact the **landlord directly**, not merely through an intermediary. This is a **substantive defect**, not a technicality. --- ### Conclusion | Issue | Assessment | |---|---| | Deposit protected within 14 days in DPS custodial | ✅ Compliant — within 30-day window | | Abbreviated landlord name | ⚠️ Likely defective — inconsistent with AST, fails strict compliance | | Agent's address substituted for landlord's address | ❌ Defective — does not satisfy Art.2(b)(ii)(bb) | | **Overall prescribed information** | **Defective under s.213(6)** | | **Section 21 notice validity** | **Invalid — s.215(1) gate applies** | --- ### Practical Consequence The Section 21 notice served is **a nullity**. The landlord cannot rely on it. To re-open the Section 21 gate, the landlord must: 1. **Re-serve compliant prescribed information** (corrected name and landlord's own address); 2. Only then serve a **fresh Section 21 notice** — the original notice cannot be cured retrospectively (***Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues*** [2013] EWCA Civ 669 principle). The tenant should also be advised to consider a s.214 penalty application, as the defective prescribed information means the deposit compliance obligations have not been fully discharged from the date of service.