Represent Law has obtained another judgment against a letting agent in London due to failures to protect tenancy deposits.
The claimants were tenants for two tenancies in a property in London. Several tenants decline to join in the claim as claimants hence were added as Defendants pursuant to CPR19.(2) but no order was sought against them.
Counsel for the Agent argued that multiple s.214(4) penalties were not allowed in law and that any s.214(4) penalty should be based on the "share" of the deposit paid by each claimant and not the total tenancy deposit.
The judge dismissed these arguments referring to the judgment of HHJ Luba QC in Sturgiss v Boddy (2021) in which Represent Law also acted for the successful claimants. The judge awarded £13,956.33 in respect of the two s.214(4) deposit claims plus £3,550 for costs.
This is another example that multiple s.214(4) penalties do apply to deposit protection claims and that penalties are not limited to "shares" of deposits.
This is another fantastic result for the tenants and Represent Law are delighted to have acted for them in this matter. If you need help with your deposit, contact Represent Law today.