header-logo header-logo

A maverick decision?

26 February 2009 / Malcolm Dowden
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Public , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Malcolm Dowden analyses the implications of Harvey on tenancy deposit schemes

Since 6 April 2007, all deposits (for rent up to £25,000 a year) taken by landlords and letting agents for assured shorthold tenancies in and , must be protected by a tenancy deposit protection scheme. Tenancy deposit schemes were introduced to address concerns that deposits—often equal to two or three months’ rent—were being retained by landlords even when there was no damage left behind by the tenant, or that tenants were able to recover deposits only by taking legal action which, given the relatively small sums involved, would not be cost effective. The schemes were intended to provide effective protection for tenants, and effective leverage against landlords.

 

What happens if the landlord fails to comply?

On the face of it, the remedies available against a landlord who fails to comply with the requirements of the scheme are severe, and ought to prompt compliance. Either the tenant or the party that agreed to pay the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll