Timing is Everything

Timing is everything

The landscape of tenancy law is ever evolving, with new cases constantly refining the obligations of landlords and the rights of tenants. One such case that has brought clarity to the intricacies of tenancy deposits and the timing of prescribed information is Siddeeq v Alaian, decided on 9 August 2024 by His Honour Judge Hellman.

The case at a glance

The core issue in Siddeeq v Alaian revolved around the correct timing for the provision of prescribed information under the Housing Act 2004. In this instance, the landlord incorporated the prescribed information into the tenancy agreement, providing it at the time of signing, which was before the actual deposit was received. This approach is not uncommon among landlords and letting agents who often include the prescribed information as part of the tenancy agreement itself.

Complications arose when the landlord later issued a section 21 notice to repossess the property. A section 21 notice, often referred to as a “no-fault” eviction notice, allows landlords to repossess their property at the end of a fixed-term tenancy or during a periodic tenancy, provided that certain legal requirements have been met.

The tenant contested the validity of the section 21 notice, arguing that it was defective because the prescribed information had been provided before the deposit was paid, rather than after, rendering the section 21 notice invalid.

The court’s ruling

HHJ Hellman agreed with the tenant’s argument. The Judge ruled that the prescribed information must be provided after the deposit has been received by the landlord. This ruling is rooted in the specific wording of the Housing Act 2004, which requires that landlords provide the prescribed information within 30 days of receiving the deposit. By providing the information before the deposit was actually paid, the landlord in this case failed to comply with this requirement.

As a result, the section 21 notice was deemed invalid, and the landlord’s attempt to repossess the property was unsuccessful. The ruling in Siddeeq v Alaian serves as a critical reminder that even minor procedural missteps can have significant consequences for landlords.

Implications for landlords

For landlords, this ruling is a clear signal that providing prescribed information at the correct time is not just a formality but a legal necessity. Even if the information is included in the tenancy agreement, it must be reissued within 30 days of receipt of the deposit. Failing to adhere to this timeline could invalidate a section 21 notice, complicating the process of regaining possession of the property.

Landlords and agents should review their practices to ensure that the prescribed information is provided in a timely and compliant manner. This may involve adjusting the timing of when this information is shared or ensuring that the receipt of the deposit is clearly documented before the information is provided.

Best practices moving forward

Wait for the Deposit: Ensure that the prescribed information is only provided after the deposit has been received. This may require landlords to issue the information separately from the tenancy agreement if the deposit is not paid at the time of signing.

Document Everything: Keep thorough records of when the deposit was received and when the prescribed information was provided. This documentation will be crucial if the validity of a section 21 notice is ever challenged.

Obtain Legal Advice: Given the complexities of landlord and tenant law, landlords should consider seeking legal advice to ensure full compliance with the Housing Act 2004 and other relevant legislation.

In conclusion, the Siddeeq v Alaian case serves as an important lesson for landlords on the significance of procedural accuracy in tenancy matters. By understanding and adhering to the correct timing for serving prescribed information, landlords can protect themselves from legal challenges and ensure a smoother and cheaper process when seeking to regain possession of their property.