Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) should give landlords pause before withholding security deposits. In Hansen v. Bupp, No. 673 WDA 2014 (non-precedential), a state Superior Court decision handed down Feb. 24 affirmed a significant award against a landlord. The litigation stemmed from a dispute over the withholding of a security deposit and rent in the context of a residential lease to college students in Allegheny County.
It has been 40 years since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, 329 A.2d 812 (Pa. 1974), that the UTPCPL must be liberally construed to effect the law’s purpose of protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices, which includes the modern apartment dweller as a consumer of housing services. In Bupp, the deception was based on the circumstances, created by the landlord, which forced the tenants to vacate the apartment before the first month of the lease had even expired and the landlord’s subsequent refusal to refund the security deposit and last month’s rent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
