header-logo header-logo

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

A maverick decision?

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll