Lowe v Charterhouse

This is an interesting case where Mr Lowe (the tenant) made a deposit penalty claim for 10 penalties against Charterhouse (the landlord) as he had stated he had not been provided with the statutory prescribed information at the start of the tenancy. The amount the tenant was claiming for was £120,888.00

Let’s start from the beginning

Mr Lowe was a tenant of the Governor of Sutton’s hospital in Charterhouse. The tenancy began on 4 January 2010, with a rent of £2,384 per calendar month on an Assured Tenancy. This was because the annual rent was at the time over the rent limit for the tenancy to be an Assured shorthold tenancy. This meant the security deposit did not need to be protected when the tenancy began. 

The rent limit increased in October 2010 to £100,000 per annum which deferred the Assured tenancy to an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. At which point Charterhouse’s agent had protected the deposit beforehand and sent a letter enclosing the deposit certificate, scheme booklet and the prescribed information. It was unsigned and waiting for the tenant’s signature and return. Mr Lowe’s evidence was that he had not received the letter in September 2010, even though his witness statements stated he did not recall receiving the prescribed documents. 

There were eight tenancies in total during the tenant’s time at the property with a mix of statutory periodic tenancies and fixed term tenancies, with the last fixed term ending on 31 July 2015. Mr Lowe suggested there was a further fixed term agreed ending on 30 September 2017 which subsequently had another statutory periodic tenancy, this then meant there were potentially 10 tenancies overall. Charterhouse denied there was an agreed further fixed term ending on 30 September.

Charterhouse argued Mr Lowe could not make a claim after the expiry of six years from when the breach had accrued based on:

Limitation Act 1980. –Section 9 – Time limit for actions for sums of recovery by statute

1. An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The tenant believed they had 12 years to be able to make a claim under Section 8. Section 8 – Time limit for actions on a specialty

1. An action upon a specialty shall not be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

A specialty might have existed had, for instance, a tenancy been signed and executed as a Deed.

The judge held that ‘recoverable’ was not limited to sums paid over and of which recovery was sought on the basis that the Act clearly treats recovery as including the obtaining of money not previously paid out by a claimant to a defendant.

Mr Lowe had claimed there was a new tenancy after October 2015 as he started paying a higher rental amount, however this does not mean there is a new tenancy agreement. This then meant as there was no new tenancy agreement there wasn’t a further two tenancies. The Judge was confident there were only eight tenancies in total.

Charterhouse had attempted to return the security deposit in the way of a cheque, however, Mr Lowe who worked in the financial sector had stated he didn’t know how to deposit a cheque and did not provide bank details for a transfer.

Claim was dismissed.

For the full case please see the link below.

Lowe v Charterhouse [2022] EW Misc 8 (CC) (28 October 2022) (bailii.org)