000			01415cab a22002055a 4500
001			E153582
008			110808e20110506xxk 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u153582
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aKaren Julie Potts v Robert Densley and Shirley Elizabeth Pays _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2011
520			_a[2011] EWHC 1144 (QB), 6 May 2011. The claimant (P) had been tenant of the defendents (D). P had paid a deposit to D after requesting termination of the tenancy, D offered to repay the deposit immediately, however P specified that it should be paid into a tenancy deposit scheme. This was done after the termination of the tenancy, and P made a claim for three times the amount of the deposit, under the Housing Act 2004 S214, on the basis that the rules relating to tenancy deposit schemes had not been followed and that necessary information had not been supplied. A previous judge had found that there had been a technical breach, however in view of the unusual circumstances she did not impose sanctions on D. P appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aPOTTS v DENSLEY AND ANOR
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 2004 S214
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1144.html _zView the judgement free of charge at www.bailii.org
942			_n0
999			_c83322 _d83322