Lowe (Appellant) v The Governors of Sutton's Hospital in Charterhouse (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0143

Parties

Appellant(s)

Merryck Lowe

Respondent(s)

THE GOVERNORS OF SUTTON’S HOSPITAL IN CHARTERHOUSE

Issue

(1) Is the Information Requirement in Article 2(1)(g)(vi) of the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 (“the 2007 Order”) satisfied where the landlord makes reference to a clause in a tenancy agreement that is not attached and which differs in numbering from the actual tenancy agreement? (2) Is the Confirmation Requirement in Article 2(1)(g)(vii) of the 2007 Order satisfied where the landlord signs a covering letter enclosing the certificate, rather than the certificate itself?

Facts

The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 sets out certain steps that a landlord must comply with when a tenant pays them a deposit in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy. This appeal raises issues about two of these requirements. The first relevant requirement, contained in Article 2(1)(g)(vi) of the 2007 Order, is that the landlord inform the tenant, by reference to the terms of the tenancy, of the circumstances in which the landlord can retain the deposit (the “Information Requirement”). The second relevant requirement, contained in Article 2(1)(g)(vii) of the 2007 Order, is that the landlord sign a certificate confirming that the enclosed information is accurate and that the tenant has had the opportunity to verify that this is so (“the Confirmation Requirement”). The Appellant was the tenant of residential premises. The Respondent is a charity, who let the premises to the Appellant as a private landlord. The tenant occupied the premises for some 12 years, which covers a sequence of 10 successive tenancies. In January 2010, at the start of the first tenancy, the tenant paid a deposit of £3300. In September 2010, the landlord’s agent protected the tenant’s deposit with a deposit scheme. The agent sent a letter to the tenant confirming that the deposit had been protected and enclosing an unsigned certificate of prescribed information. There were two problems with the letter and enclosed certificate. First, the certificate stated that “The deposit will be released following the procedures set out in Clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement attached.” However, no tenancy agreement was attached, and in the tenant’s actual tenancy agreement, there was no Clause numbered 6. The actual clause in the tenant’s agreement that referred to the use of the deposit was Clause 5.6. Second, the certificate was not signed by the landlord or its agent. Instead, only the cover letter was signed. The tenant argued that these were breaches of the tenancy deposit legislation which entitled him to payment of £120,888 by way of the statutory penalty in s214 Housing Act 1996. The County Court dismissed the claim, and the tenant’s appeals were dismissed by both the High Court and the County Court. The tenant now appeals to the Supreme Court.