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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll