Can tenants claim for multiple breaches of tenancy deposit rules?

Residential landlords have a legal requirement to protect a tenant’s deposit. But if a landlord fails to do so more than once, can a tenant claim for multiple breaches of tenancy deposit rules? Our property disputes solicitors share their guidance.

Under the Housing Act 2004, landlords in England and Wales are legally required to protect a tenant’s deposit in a government authorised tenancy deposit scheme within 30 days of the deposit having been paid.

They must also provide the tenant with prescribed information relating to the protection of the deposit. If a landlord fails to comply with these obligations, then the tenant may be entitled to bring a claim against their landlord for the return of the deposit and a compensatory sum of between one and three times the value of the deposit.

What if your tenancy is renewed?

A question that is often considered in these types of matters is whether tenants can claim multiple penalties when a landlord fails to comply with deposit protection requirements across multiple tenancies. This issue typically arises when a tenant remains in the same property under renewed fixed-term agreements or when a statutory periodic tenancy arises following the expiry of a fixed term. In these cases, tenants may argue that each new tenancy creates a fresh obligation on the landlord to have protected the deposit and to have provided the prescribed information, and that failure to do so creates a separate breach of tenancy deposit rules.

What is the court’s approach?

The courts have increasingly supported the view that each tenancy, including any renewals and statutory periodic tenancies, creates a separate obligation on the landlord. If a landlord fails to protect the deposit or serve the prescribed information at the start of each new tenancy, the tenants may be entitled to claim separate penalties for each breach.

In Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues (2013), the Court of Appeal held that a statutory periodic tenancy would be treated as a new tenancy and that the deposit is deemed to be “received” again.

The Court’s position on this was confirmed in Howard v Dalton (2019), where the Court awarded between two and three times the deposit for each breach, treating each fixed-term renewal as a separate tenancy with its own compliance requirements. Similarly, in Okadigbo v Chan (2014), the landlord had protected the deposit late during the initial tenancy but failed to re-serve the prescribed information upon renewal. The Court held that this constituted two breaches, being the initial breach when the deposit was protected late under the first tenancy and then an additional breach when the prescribed information was not re-served for the second tenancy.

The courts have emphasised within case law that the obligations under Sections 213 and 214 of the Housing Act 2004 are not one-off requirements and must be complied with under each new tenancy.

However, some Judges have interpreted the legislation to imply that only one penalty should be awarded, even where multiple tenancies exist. This view is less common now, particularly because case law has built up on multiple breach awards. There is also some debate as to whether prescribed information needs to be re-served for every new tenancy, if the deposit remains protected and in the same scheme, such that there is no change to the prescribed information.

This view has been challenged by the Deregulation Act 2015, and by more recent case law. In Szorad & Anor v Kohli (2023), the Judge awarded two separate penalties, confirming that Superstrike remains good law and that Section 215B of the Housing Act does not override the requirement to protect deposits on subsequent tenancies unless the deposit was properly protected during the original term.

What does this mean for tenants?

The authorities largely support the view that the failure to protect a deposit or serve prescribed information under each new tenancy can give rise to a separate penalty. While landlords may argue that continuously holding the same deposit should prevent a tenant from claiming multiple breaches, courts have consistently held that each tenancy renewal is a fresh occasion for compliance and as such additional penalties for breaching tenancy deposit rules can be sought.

If your landlord didn’t protect your deposit or failed to give you the required information across multiple tenancies, you may have a case for multiple penalties. Courts are increasingly siding with tenants who pursue claims for each breach.

If you’re unsure whether your deposit was correctly protected, we may be able to assist you in bringing a claim. If you have any queries or concerns about whether your deposit was correctly protected or whether you were provided with the correct prescribed information, we are here to assist.

To arrange a free initial consultation telephone call regarding your potential tenancy deposit claim, please contact our expert property disputes team.

As specialists in landlord and tenant matters, our property disputes team keep up to date on all changes to the law, ensuring that we give the best advice and can help to resolve any issues landlords have.