Landlords granting assured tenancies are required to comply with tenancy deposit obligations under the Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act). This requires landlords to protect the tenant’s deposit in an authorised scheme within 30 days, and provide the tenant with the prescribed information, including a signed certificate confirming the accuracy of that information, in accordance with the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007 (2007 Order). Before the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (which came into force on 1 May 2026), failure to comply with deposit requirements precluded landlords from serving a valid section 21 notice.

The Case of Hamer v Levy

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hamer v Levy provides helpful clarification on how errors within the prescribed information required for deposits will be treated. 

In this case, the tenant entered into an assured shorthold tenancy in 2019 and paid a deposit shortly thereafter. The landlord protected the deposit and provided the tenant with the prescribed information. On 12 April 2024, the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the tenant stating that possession proceedings would be commenced and provided further documentation. A section 21 notice was then served on 17 April 2024, and subsequent proceedings issued. The tenant defended the claim, but the County Court Judge granted a Possession Order on 5 August 2024. The tenant was also unsuccessful on appeal.

The tenant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the prescribed information originally provided in relation to her deposit contained several inaccuracies. These alleged inaccuracies were as follows:

1. The tenant's telephone number was incorrect.
2. The deposit date was incorrect.
3. Incorrect cross-referencing to specific provisions of the tenancy agreement.
4. The prescribed information was not signed by the landlord.

Crucially, section 215(2) of the 2004 Act allows for a landlord to remedy any errors to comply with the prescribed information requirements and the Court of Appeal decided that although there were initial errors in the prescribed information, this had been rectified by the landlord either through the tenancy agreement itself or in subsequent correspondence from the landlord and their solicitors prior to service of the notice. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal held that the inaccuracies relied on by the tenant were not material, for the following reasons:

1. The incorrect telephone number caused no prejudice to the tenant, as the parties primarily communicated by email.
2. The deposit date is not required prescribed information under the 2007 Order.
3. The tenancy agreement cross-referencing error was an obvious typographical mistake that a reasonable recipient would understand.
4. Although the prescribed information had not been signed, the landlord’s solicitors’ letter of 12 April 2024 effectively remedied this defect before the section 21 notice was served.

Notably, the Court of Appeal found that the information given to the tenant in 2024 was ‘substantially to the same effect’ as required by the 2007 Order. The landlord's solicitors' letter of 12 April 2024 sufficiently remedied any deficiencies before the section 21 notice was served on 17 April 2024. Therefore, there was no merit in the tenant’s defence to the claim for possession.

The Court of Appeal concluded that whilst the circuit judge's decision to strike out the appeal was procedurally flawed, as the appropriate course of action would be to refuse permission to appeal, the outcome was neither wrong nor unjust as there was no merit in the appeal and therefore upheld the making of the possession order.

What can Landlords learn from Hamer v Levy?

Hamer v Levy reflects a pragmatic approach to compliance, confirming that errors in prescribed information will not automatically invalidate a section 21 notice where the tenant has, in substance, been provided with the information necessary to understand their rights. 

Although the legal landscape has shifted under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, with the abolition of section 21 notices, deposit protection requirements are now extended to all assured tenancies and where these requirements are not met landlords could be restricted from relying on some, but not all of the grounds for possession. 

Against this background, Levy v Hamer remains of practical importance for landlords in possession claims. It is relevant to both historic section 21 notices and for future possession claims, as the case provides useful guidance on how courts are likely to assess compliance with deposit protection requirements. In particular, the decision signals a judicial willingness to prioritise substance over form where minor or technical errors are involved.

For more information on deposit protection requirements, please get in touch.