It's submitted that this narrow interpretation must extend to its interaction with TFA. The latter, read purposively, aims to prevent excessive penalties (eg Sch1 Para4 late rent fees). DFRA is just such a penalty - TFA should be taken to include it.

Definitely a trickier point to deal with though.

It's relevant that DFRA seems to be interpreted narrowly, due to its penal nature - Oliver Ashworth and (per commentary) Laity v Pearce (1946).

It's relevant that TFA would not be wholly overturning DFRA, just restricting its application. DFRA would still apply in commercial contexts, and some residential ones. The statutes can sit side-by-side: the stricter implied repeal rules would not be applicable here.

The statutory/contract point is tougher to handle.

I'd like to rely on s1(6), which says TFA prohibits payments required for act/default, and not included in the tenancy agreement. Unlike other clauses, there's nothing here limiting it to contractual payments - why not statutory penalties?

Additionally, the TFA explicitly considers situations outside the timeframe of the tenancy (e.g. holding deposit, s28 interpretations), so the tenancy need not be extant for TFA to kick in.

I don't think 'in connection with' implies a temporal restraint, only a logical one.

But certainly arguable.

I think it's likely to be 'in connection with' the tenancy - the DFRA fee can only arise from a tenancy relationship, and is calculated by provisions in the tenancy itself.

The reverse conclusion - that the DFRA fee is not connected to the tenancy - seems strained.

s28 TFA (interpretation) is explicit, including people who have “ceased to be LLs/tenants under a tenancy”. I think that far it’s covered - though the ‘in connection with’ point could be argued more narrowly.

I guess s48 would only be relevant for service, though tenants would likely be defendants.

An excellent appetizer, before I start pupillage in a couple of weeks!

(The judgment can be found here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68a42b... )

We were successful at Tribunal over the summer, obtaining an order that the landlord repay over £24,000 in rent.

I was happy to see that this case has been reported by LandlordZone, who described the award as "whopping". The article can be found here: www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/landlor...