Ameera Macintyre v Cowdray Trust Limited and Rathbones Trust Company Limited (2025) EWCC 54
The Law
When a landlord takes a security deposit, they must observe the requirements set out in the Housing Act 2004. In particular:
- Section 213(3) of the Housing Act 2004 requires that the initial requirements of a deposit protection scheme must be complied with within 30 days of it being paid by the tenant or relevant person to the landlord/agent. Depending on the deposit protection scheme you use, the initial requirements vary but generally the initial requirements are to protect the deposit and serve the prescribed information.
- Section 213(6)(a) of the Housing Act 2004 requires the landlord to provide prescribed information in the ‘prescribed form’ or in a form substantially to the same effect.
- Section 213(6)(b) of the Housing Act 2004 requires the prescribed information to be given within 30 days of the deposit being paid.
The case of Ameera Macintyre v Cowdray Trust Limited and Rathbones Trust Company Limited (2025) EWCC 54 considers whether transferring a deposit to a different deposit protection scheme gives rise to a fresh obligation to serve the prescribed information, and whether providing incorrect information within the tenant’s details will invalidate the prescribed information as a whole.
The Facts
The Landlord in this case protected the deposit and served the prescribed information within 30 days of receipt with MyDeposits.
The tenant later informed the landlord that she had changed her email, stating:
“My email has changed to [X]. I would be grateful if you could send the rent demands to that address in future as I cannot receive emails to this one.”
The deposit was then transferred to the TDS custodial scheme and a document identified as the prescribed information was served on the tenant, providing the tenant’s original email address as contact details for the tenant.
The County Court Decision
First Instance
The District Judge held that the landlord’s duty to provide prescribed information under s213 Housing Act only apply when the deposit was first received and was not triggered on transferring the deposit. A possession order was made on this basis.
The District Judge also held that, in the event the above decision was wrong, they considered that the use of the tenant’s original email address could not be considered to be ‘substantially to the same effect’ as the second email address.
Appeal
On appeal, the Circuit Judge held that transferring the deposit did in fact trigger a fresh obligation to provide the prescribed information to the tenant.
As for the use of the original email address, it was clear that the change of email address was not just for rent demands, and was intended to be for all purposes, but the Circuit Judge considered that it was wrong for the District Judge to take such a narrow view of the phrase ‘substantially to the same effect’ by considering the same only in relation to the email addresses themselves, rather than the prescribed information as a whole.
The contact details for the tenant will (or at least should) already be known to the tenant. The purpose of that information is not to inform a tenant of something they already know, but to enable to tenant to check that the information given to the deposit protection scheme is correct. Therefore, it was held that the information given, overall, was indeed substantially to the same effect.
On that basis, the possession order stood.
Comments
This case confirms that when a deposit is moved to a different deposit protection scheme, it will trigger an obligation for the landlord to serve new prescribed information.
The purpose of the prescribed information is to ensure a tenant knows where their deposit is protected, and what details have been given to the deposit protection scheme in relation to their deposit. It is clear that the legislation was not drafted with the intention of allowing landlords to serve prescribed information within 30 days of first receiving a deposit and then transfer the deposit to a different scheme without having to serve a fresh set of prescribed information.
As for minor errors in the prescribed information, these will not necessarily invalidate the prescribed information in its entirety, depending on the nature of the error and whether that information should already be known to the tenant. This decision, as well as the decision in Lowe v Charterhouse [2025], demonstrate that reasonableness plays a big role when it comes to the gravity of any errors made in the prescribed information.
If you have any questions in respect of the above case, or any other aspects of residential possession, please do not hesitate to get in touch with our Residential Possession team.
