The recent Court of Appeal decision Merryck Lowe v The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital in Charterhouse [2025] EWCA Civ 857 has confirmed that the ‘reasonable recipient standard’ applies to the service of tenancy deposit prescribed information. The tenant, Mr Lowe, unsuccessfully sought to appeal the High Court’s 2024 ruling on the point and this decision will be a welcome one for residential landlords, letting agents, and practitioners alike. The judgment of the High Court ([2024] EWHC 646 (Ch) had introduced an arguably more balanced and practical approach to an area long dominated by technical pitfalls and this latest ruling signals a clear shift in judicial thinking: from strict technicality toward substantive fairness and what a reasonable tenant would understand.
Where earlier decisions demanded near-perfect formal compliance with the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, Lowe recognises that minor errors or omissions should not invalidate an otherwise compliant process – provided the tenant is not misled or disadvantaged.
In this case, the tenant argued that the landlord failed to comply with the prescribed information requirements under the Housing Act 2004. The defects were technical rather than substantive:
– The deposit certificate had not been signed, and
– Clause references in the tenancy agreement were incorrect.
Despite these shortcomings, the High Court found that the tenant was not confused or prejudiced. The landlord had provided the required information in a way that a “reasonable recipient” would have understood. The court held this to be substantial compliance with the legal requirements – favouring substance over rigid adherence to form.
The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, guided by the legal reasoning in cases like Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749 and Pease v Carter [2020] EWCA Civ 175. These authorities confirm that notices and documents should be interpreted through the lens of a reasonable recipient, rather than strictly against the text.
In other words, the law asks: Would a reasonable tenant, receiving the information as provided, understand their rights and obligations? If the answer is yes, minor technical defects – like a missing signature or incorrect internal reference – should not invalidate the document or the process.
This contrasts sharply with the form-focused rulings of a decade earlier in Ayannuga and Superstrike.
In Ayannuga v Swindells [2012] EWCA Civ 1789, the Court of Appeal held that a landlord’s failure to include all of the prescribed information – specifically, the landlord’s contact details – rendered the notice non-compliant. Even though the tenant had suffered no confusion or detriment, the omission resulted in the landlord being penalised under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004. The Court adopted a strict, literal approach—reinforcing that landlords must comply with each element of the 2007 Order to the letter, even where a reasonable recipient would have understood the information and no prejudice was caused.
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 further entrenched this strict approach. There, the court held that when a fixed-term tenancy rolls into a statutory periodic tenancy, it becomes a new tenancy for legal purposes. This means that landlords must re-protect the deposit and re-serve prescribed information, even if nothing else changes. The landlord’s failure to do so in Superstrike meant the Section 21 notice served later was invalid.
Together, Ayannuga and Superstrike set a precedent for technical precision in deposit protection. Many landlords were caught out by obscure requirements, despite having acted in good faith and without any real dispute from tenants.
The Lowe decision reflects a welcome evolution. While landlords must still take their deposit obligations seriously, the court recognised that perfection is not always necessary, especially where the tenant is clearly informed, and no injustice arises.
The court also confirmed that the limitation period for claims under section 214 is six years from the date of breach, giving landlords a clearer window of risk and reducing the threat of historic claims arising long after the tenancy has ended.
Practical Tips for Landlords and Agents
Focus on Clarity: Ensure the information you provide to tenants is accurate and understandable. The test is no longer just formal compliance – it’s whether a reasonable tenant would understand what they’ve been given.
Keep Evidence of Delivery: Even if a certificate is unsigned, a covering letter signed by the landlord can help demonstrate that the documents were provided.
Review at Renewal: If a tenancy becomes statutory periodic, double-check whether fresh compliance steps are needed (e.g., re-serving prescribed information). Although Lowe suggests leniency, Superstrike remains binding.
Avoid Unnecessary Risk: While courts may excuse minor technical errors, best practice is still full and accurate compliance – especially when serving Section 21 notices.
Act Promptly: The six-year limit may sound generous, but prompt compliance reduces risk and improves tenant relations.
Lowe represents a significant turning point in the legal approach to deposit protection – and potentially in residential landlord law more broadly. By prioritising fairness and tenant understanding over rigid formalism, the courts are beginning to recognise the practical realities faced by landlords and agents. While the decision does not give licence to cut corners, it does allow for a measured degree of flexibility in cases where landlords have acted in good faith and the underlying purpose of the legislation has been fulfilled without causing prejudice to tenants.
Given the history of this case, one might wonder whether permission to appeal to the Supreme Court will be sought. Even if it is, we hope that the courts will continue to move away from formalistic rigidity and towards a more practical, purpose-driven understanding of compliance in housing law.
This update is for general purpose and guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered. No part of this update may be used, reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means without the prior permission of Brecher LLP.
