Helpful clarification by Court of Appeal: Is an error in prescribed information fatal to a landlord’s possession claim?

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Lowe v The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital In Charterhouse [2025] has provided crucial guidance on how the courts interpret compliance with tenancy deposit requirements under the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). The ruling addresses three key areas:

1. the effect of technical errors in prescribed information
2. the application of the Mannai principle, and
3. the limitation period for bringing penalty claims.

This article explores the legal principles and their implications for landlords and tenants as a result of this case.

Background

The dispute was between a tenant, Mr Lowe, and his landlord, The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital In Charterhouse, in relation to the £3,300.00 tenancy deposit. Initially the tenancy was not an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) due to the level of rent but it was converted into an AST by operation of law once the Assured Tenancies (Amendment) Order 2010 came into force on 1 October 2010, and so the deposit protection provisions became applicable.

Whilst the deposit had been protected as required, the landlord’s agent sent Mr Lowe prescribed information that referred to a non-existent clause 6 in the AST (instead of the correct clause 5.3). Additionally, the certificate was not signed, although it was sent with a signed covering letter. Mr Lowe brought a claim under section 214 of the HA 2004, alleging these were breaches of the statutory deposit requirements.

What the legislation and case law says

• Under section 213(6) of the HA 2004, landlords must give tenants accurate and complete “prescribed information” about how their deposit is protected.
• The Mannai principle says that minor errors in a legal notice does not invalidate it as long as the reasonable recipient would still understand its intended meaning.
• Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 gives a tenant six years from the date of the breach to bring a penalty claim relating to deposit scheme failures.
• The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 52.12(2) govern the timeframe for applying for permission to appeal, which is either as directed by the lower court or within 21 days of the lower court’s decision.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court ruled in favour of the landlord, on the following basis:

• Reference to the wrong clause was not fatal – mistakenly referring to an incorrect clause was not a breach of the prescribed information requirements as a reasonable tenant would have understood the reference was meant to point to the deposit clause.
• The unsigned certificate was valid – while the certificate was technically not signed, the signed covering letter meant that the information was “substantially to the same effect” as a signed certificate, satisfying the statutory purpose of informing the tenant.

What this means for landlords and tenants

The decision provides clarity on how courts will treat minor technical errors and reaffirms a pragmatic approach to statutory compliance under the HA 2004, emphasising the need to fulfil statutory purposes over strict adherence to form. This case is helpful for both landlords and tenants particularly when interpreting compliance and limitation rules.

How we can help

We regularly advise landlords and tenants alike in relation to residential tenancies.  Please contact our property dispute resolution team for further assistance.