LATEST: Judge in troubling Tenant Fees Act case allows eviction but sticks to ‘odd’ view

A landlord has regained possession of their property following a court hearing this week after the eviction was delayed two weeks ago by a judge who took issue with a fee paid by the tenant for a ‘deposit alternative’ service.

As we reported on February 2^nd, Barbon Insurance’s Head of Legal & Claims Will Eastman and his team had been working with the landlord to remove the tenant at the property which, it has not been revealed, is in Wales.

At the first possession hearing, the Judge took issue with there being a deposit replacement scheme, suggesting the fee paid by the tenant was a ‘prohibited payment’ under the Tenant Fees Act.

“The Judge was unable to be convinced otherwise at that hearing and adjourned the matter,” says Eastman.

At the latest hearing at the County Court in Swansea (main pic) the matter was not resolved even though the eviction was given the green light.

This is because Barbon issued both a Section 21 and Section 8 notices to the tenant. The judge said he still thought the deposit alternative payment was potentially prohibited, offering the landlord the opportunity to argue the point at a later trial, or rely on the Section 8 notice. The landlord chose the latter, unsurprisingly.

Although Eastman (pictured) says the outcome for the landlord was good, it may cause problems further down the line because the matter has yet to be solved legally. Future judges may use this one for guidance and it has the potential to throw the entire ‘alternative deposit’ scheme market into chaos.

“I suspect, although hope I am proven wrong, that this is not going to be the last we hear of it,” he adds.

“In fact, we have another claim, in Wales and where a replacement scheme is in place with no rent arrears at present. We might not have to wait very long at all.

“But my view still remains that the intention of Parliament could not have been to catch such fees for these schemes as a prohibited payment.”