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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll