Reports received by the Regulation Directorate

​​​Request 765598258 

1. For each of the years 2019 to 2025 inclusive, the number of deposit-scheme breach reports received by the Regulation Directorate, the number investigated, and the number resulting in prosecution or penalty.

2. Copies of any internal guidance or policy documents used by the Regulation Directorate when deciding whether to investigate or prosecute deposit-scheme breaches.

3. Copies of any correspondence or documents since 2019 that discuss or reconcile the timing language “within 30 days" in the Regulations with “within 30 working days" in scheme materials. 

Response 

1

The Scheduled Public Authority does not hold deposit-scheme breach reports received by the Regulation Directorate; therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

However, the number investigated, and the number resulting in prosecution or penalty can be found using the link below, therefore, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Cou​rts.JE  

2

Copies of any internal guidance or policy documents used by the Regulation Directorate when deciding whether to investigate or prosecute deposit-scheme breaches can be found on www.gov.je using the link below, therefore, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Regulation Enforcement Policy  

3

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA), does not hold any correspondence or documents since 2019 that discuss or reconcile the timing language “within 30 days" in the Regulations with “within 30 working days" in scheme materials, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.  

Articles applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority"

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority. 

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means 

(1)     Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2)     A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.​

Internal Review Request

I am writing to request an internal review of the response to my Freedom of Information request ref 765598258 concerning deposit scheme breach reports and enforcement by the Regulation Directorate.

I received your response dated 3 December 2025. I do not believe the response is consistent with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, or with the Government’s own public commitments about transparency, enforcement and tenant protection. My grounds are set out below.

1. 'Information not held' deposit scheme breach reports (Article 3)

The response states that the Scheduled Public Authority “does not hold deposit scheme breach reports received by the Regulation Directorate” and relies on Article 3 of the FOI Law.

Given the importance the Government places on the Residential Tenancy Deposit Scheme, I am concerned this may be incorrect or that the searches undertaken were inadequate. The Government’s own publications repeatedly emphasise that:

• all deposits must be protected with MyDeposits Jersey within 30 days of receipt from the tenant and that failure to do so can lead to fines up to £10,000 and court proceedings; and

• it is “actually a criminal offence not to comply” with deposit protection requirements and that “the worst outcome… is prosecution”.

In this context, it would be highly unusual if the Regulation Directorate held no records at all of deposit scheme breach reports, complaints or referrals, particularly as enforcement is said to be risk based and evidence driven under the Regulation Enforcement Policy.

I therefore ask that the internal review specifically:

• describes what searches were carried out before concluding that no information is held (systems searched, search terms used, date ranges, and which teams/officials were consulted); and

• confirms whether any other team, system or public authority holds deposit related breach reports, complaints or referrals on behalf of the Regulation Directorate (for example, MyDeposits Jersey, Environmental Health, or the Environmental and Consumer Protection

Housing and Nuisance team). If so, such information should be treated as “held” for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b).

If, after proper searches, it remains the case that the Regulation Directorate does not record the number of deposit scheme breach reports received, that fact is itself of significant public interest and should be stated clearly.

2. Use of Article 23 – reference to Courts.je and 'Regulation Enforcement Policy'

For the numbers investigated and the number resulting in prosecution or penalty, the response relies on Article 23 and refers me generally to Courts.je. For internal guidance/policy, it refers me to the Regulation Enforcement Policy on gov.je.

I do not consider this sufficient to discharge the obligation in Article 23(2) to make “reasonable efforts” to inform the applicant where the information may be obtained. In particular:

• Courts.je is a large site containing a wide range of criminal and civil cases. No specific case references, lists, date ranges or search terms have been provided which would allow me to identify cases concerning alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancy Law or deposit scheme within the scope of my request.

• The Regulation Enforcement Policy is a high level document applicable to a wide range of regulated activities, not just tenancy deposits. It is unclear whether there are additional internal documents, process notes, guidance, or decision making frameworks specifically used when deciding whether to investigate or prosecute deposit scheme breaches.

I therefore ask the reviewer to:

• either provide the requested figures (numbers investigated and resulting in prosecution or penalty for each year 2019–2025) directly in the FOI response, or

• provide sufficiently specific references (for example, a list of relevant case names and dates, or a particular Courts.je report or table) that allow me to access the information without needing to conduct substantial, speculative research myself.

I also request that you confirm whether any internal documents are used in practice, beyond the published Regulation Enforcement Policy, when officers assess tenancy deposit offences, including any standard operating procedures, decision trees, or internal guidance. If such documents exist they fall squarely within the scope of my original question and should either be disclosed or properly considered under the FOI exemption framework.

3. 'No documents' on '30 days' vs '30 working days' – adequacy of searches

My third question sought copies of correspondence or documents since 2019 that discuss or reconcile the language “within 30 days” in the Regulations with “within 30 working days” in scheme materials. Your response states that none are held and again relies on Article 3.

Publicly available material clearly shows this inconsistency:

• the original 2015 government news release states that deposits must be transferred to MyDeposits “within 30 working days of receiving it” and refers to fines of up to £2,000;

• more recent government guidance states that deposits must be protected “within 30 days of receipt from the tenant” and warns landlords they could be fined up to £10,000;

• MyDeposits Jersey’s own materials talk about it being an offence not to protect deposits within 30 days.

It is difficult to accept that no internal correspondence, meeting notes, legal advice, draft guidance, or policy discussions have ever touched on:

• which timeframe (30 calendar days vs 30 working days) the Government considers correct;

• how historic materials should be updated; or

• how to explain this to tenants and landlords.

I therefore ask the reviewer to:

• describe what searches were carried out (systems, search terms, date ranges, and which individuals or teams were consulted – for example, Strategic Housing Unit, Environmental Health, MyDeposits liaison officers, and Communications), and

• re consider whether any documents, however informal (including emails or briefing notes), are in fact held that relate to this inconsistency.

If no such material is genuinely held, I request that this is stated explicitly in the review outcome, with a clear explanation of how policy and communications around this important legal deadline have been managed without any recorded consideration.

4. Wider public interest and context

This request is not merely academic. Public information emphasises that failing to protect deposits within the required period is a criminal offence and that tenants are entitled to expect meaningful enforcement. Yet FOI responses show:

• there have been no prosecutions, no convictions and no fines under the Residential Tenancy Law and subordinate legislation up to at least December 2019, with fewer than five non protected deposit cases resulting only in written warnings at Parish Hall enquiries;

• MyDeposit scheme fines FOI responses simply refer back to that earlier FOI response, rather than providing any updated enforcement picture.

Against this background, it is plainly in the public interest to understand:

• how many deposit scheme breaches are being reported;

• what action is taken; and

• how the Regulation Directorate reconciles inconsistent public messaging about legal deadlines.

I would be grateful if the internal review could address these points in detail and either:

• provide the requested information, or

• give a clear, reasoned explanation, with reference to actual searches undertaken, for why no information is held or can be provided.

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following: Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. Further questions if above is a yes:

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the original decision be partially overturned in relation to the to the questions detailed below.

Q1

The Panel agreed that the systems are not configured in a way that will allow the Scheduled Public Authority to extract the details you have requested. A manual search of records held would be required in order to obtain this information.

As such it has been estimated that to provide the information requested would exceed the 12.5 hours allowed for Freedom of Information responses in accordance with Regulation 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014. Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

Q2

The panel agrees that the information disclosed in the original response which links to the Regulation Enforcement Policy is correct, however to assist, the links to further relevant information, which are detailed within the Regulation Enforcement Policy are now available below:

• Infrastructure and Environment 

• Jersey Regulators Code 

• Submit feedback to the Government of Jersey 

• States of Jersey Codes of Practice

• Jersey Law | Home​

Article applied

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost

excessive

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.

(2) Despite paragraph (1), a scheduled public authority may still supply the information requested on payment to it of a fee determined by the authority in the manner prescribed by Regulations for the purposes of this Article.

(3) Regulations may provide that, in such circumstances as the Regulations prescribe, if two or more requests for information are made to a scheduled public authority –

(a) by one person; or

(b) by different persons who appear to the scheduled public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.