Rosalind Burgin and Misha Nayak-Oliver secure settlement for family of four to remain in home
2 September 2025
Rosalind and Misha represented their client at Liverpool Civil and Family Court (pictured). Credit: Richard Oldroyd / Shutterstock.
Garden Court North’s Rosalind Burgin and Misha Nayak-Oliver resolved possession proceedings brought against a family of four. The matter concluded at a hearing on Tuesday (26 August 2025) at Liverpool County Court.
The Claimant landlord sought possession on grounds of rent arrears, bringing possession proceedings on grounds 8, 10 and 11 of section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the Defendant’s tenancy.
The family counterclaimed for damages arising from alleged disrepair in the property and alleged breaches of tenancy deposit regulations.
The matter was resolved with a new, three-year tenancy for the family at a fixed rent, the clearing of rent arrears, a 28-day break clause for the tenant, and an agreement to carry out repair works at the property in accordance with an expert surveyor report.
Rosalind, a member of Garden Court North’s housing team, and Misha, a pupil at Garden Court North, represented the Defendant at different stages in the proceedings.
Failure to protect a tenancy deposit
Cases such as this can involve disagreement over whether a payment is a deposit if it is labelled as something else.
Section 212(8) Housing Act 2004 defines a tenancy deposit as “any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for (a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or (b) the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the tenancy.” If a payment has been labelled as something else, such as a “security”, this does not necessarily prevent it from meeting the definition in s212(8).
Under s214 Housing Act 2004, the Court must order a sum of money not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times the amount of the deposit for a breach of the relevant tenancy deposit regulations. An example would be failure to protect a deposit in a recognised scheme.
In this case, the counterclaims for alleged failure to protect a tenancy deposit were relatively complex due to various tenancies having arisen during the family’s time in the property.
Rosalind and Misha were instructed by Tom Lavin and Shannon Donnelly at Vauxhall Law Centre.
For further information, please contact Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk
