The Importance of Deposit Prescribed Information

Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB)

This is a significant High Court case (so binding), highlighting the importance of prescribed tenancy deposit information.

Note: For assured tenancies in England under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 and occupation contracts in Wales, deposit compliance is part of the possession gateway. A court will usually only be able to make a possession order where the deposit was protected in an authorised scheme, the scheme's initial requirements were complied with, and the prescribed information was served on the tenant (and any relevant person), or a statutory alternative applies (for example, the deposit has been returned to the tenant or any related proceedings have been resolved, withdrawn, or settled). The prescribed information points in this case note, therefore, continue to matter for possession claims in England, not only for deposit penalty claims.

This case predates the 2012 changes to the rules. We have retained only the part about providing all prescribed information and who can provide it, as that remains relevant.

Background 

Mr and Mrs Nice (the landlords) granted an assured shorthold tenancy to Karin Suurpere on 6 January 2009 for a fixed term of 6 months. The rent was £300.00 per calendar month, and a deposit of £500.00 was paid on commencement of the tenancy. 

On 20 July 2009, the landlords protected the deposit using the free custodial scheme Deposit Protection Service (DPS). 

On 10 August 2009, the tenant issued proceedings against the landlord, which included a claim for three times the deposit compensation because although the landlord had protected the deposit, it was not done within 14 days. No prescribed information had ever been provided. 

In addition, the tenant also pursued claims for wrongful eviction, on which point she failed, and for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, which succeeded and for which she was awarded compensation of £1,000.00. 

This appeal concerns only the two deposit issues (failure to protect within the required timeframe at the time and failure to provide prescribed information).

The DPS informed the tenant on 21 July 2009 that the deposit had been protected, provided the website address where the terms and conditions could be downloaded and provided the following information:

In a subsequent letter to the tenant, dated 8 September 2009, the DPS confirmed the date of 20 July as the date when the deposit had been submitted to them. In a deposit summary dated 8 October 2009, the DPS set out the registration number, the name and contact details of the landlord, the property address and the deposit amount. 

The deposit was returned to the tenant in full on 1 September 2009.

The Prescribed Information order 

The prescribed information requirements are contained in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 and require the following information to be provided: 

Prescribed information relating to tenancy deposits

2.—(1) The following is prescribed information for the purposes of section 213(5) of the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”)— 

(a) the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and any fax number of the scheme administrator of the authorised tenancy deposit scheme applying to the deposit; 

(b)any information contained in a leaflet supplied by the scheme administrator to the landlord which explains the operation of the provisions contained in sections 212 to 215 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Act; 

(c)the procedures that apply under the scheme by which an amount in respect of a deposit may be paid or repaid to the tenant at the end of the shorthold tenancy (“the tenancy”); 

(d)the procedures that apply under the scheme where either the landlord or the tenant is not contactable at the end of the tenancy; 

(e)the procedures that apply under the scheme where the landlord and the tenant dispute the amount to be paid or repaid to the tenant in respect of the deposit; 

(f)the facilities available under the scheme for enabling a dispute relating to the deposit to be resolved without recourse to litigation; and 

(g)the following information in connection with the tenancy in respect of which the deposit has been paid— 

(i)the amount of the deposit paid; 

(ii)the address of the property to which the tenancy relates; 

(iii)the name, address, telephone number, and any e-mail address or fax number of the landlord; 

(iv)the name, address, telephone number, and any e-mail address or fax number of the tenant, including such details that should be used by the landlord or scheme administrator for the purpose of contacting the tenant at the end of the tenancy; 

(v)the name, address, telephone number and any e-mail address or fax number of any relevant person; 

(vi)the circumstances when all or part of the deposit may be retained by the landlord, by reference to the terms of the tenancy; and 

(vii)confirmation (in the form of a certificate signed by the landlord) that— 

(aa)the information he provides under this sub-paragraph is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief; and 

(bb)he has given the tenant the opportunity to sign any document containing the information provided by the landlord under this article by way of confirmation that the information is accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief.

In this case, the tenant acknowledged that the information in paragraph (a) had been provided. However, it was submitted that the evidence did not demonstrate compliance with paragraph (b), and there was no compliance with paragraphs (c) or (d). Further, whilst paragraphs (g) (i) to (iv) and, arguably, paragraphs (e) and (f) were complied with, there was no compliance with paragraph (g) (vi) or, importantly, with paragraph (g) (vii). 

The landlord contended:

• that they gave the tenant full details of registration of the deposit on 21 July, confirming the deposit reference number and providing details of the DPS website; and
• that they had complied with their duty to provide information as required by the Act and the 2007 Order.

The information provided by the DPS: 

The court held regarding the DPS providing the prescribed information: 

The [landlords] contend that they did comply with their obligation in this respect, through the information that was provided to the [tenant] by the Deposit Protection Service in their letter of 21 July 2009, informing the [tenant] that the [landlord's] had submitted a deposit of £500.

There are two difficulties with this argument, however. First, the obligation under this legislation is that of the landlord personally. The provision of information to a tenant by the Deposit Protection Service in this way does not, in my view, amount to compliance by the landlord personally with his obligation under s. 213(5) and (6)(a). Secondly, the information provided in the letter of 21 July did not in any event include all those particulars which must be provided pursuant to the 2007 Order and which must, importantly, be certified by the landlord as accurate particulars. As Mr Butler correctly pointed out, the information provided included only some of the particulars listed in Article 2. 

Nor is it open to the [landlords] to suggest that further information would have been available to the Appellant on the Deposit Protection Service website, as their letter pointed out, in order to plug any gaps in the information provided by the [landlords]. Firstly, there is no evidence as to what information is actually provided on that website. Secondly, it will not in any event be information which has been certified as accurate by the landlord personally. Thirdly, a high number of tenants in social housing are unlikely to have easy access to computers, in order for them to discover this information. The obligation to provide it is in any event the landlord's. [paras 49 - 52]

The landlords were ordered to pay the tenant £1,500.00 within 14 days (three times the deposit, which was the penalty at that time).

The judgment Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) is available here.