13 March 2008 / Daniel Dovar , Michael Walsh

Issue: 7312 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Landlord&tenant , Property

printer

mail-detail

Money back guaranteed?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Daniel Dovar and Michael Walsh give their verdict on the tenancy deposit scheme, one year on

Since April 2007, landlords letting property on an assured shorthold tenancy have had to protect any deposit taken under the tenancy deposit scheme. Many of those tenancies have already or will be coming to an end in the next few months. This article addresses what happens if there is a dispute over the return of the deposit. In April 2007, the scheme imposed by Housing Act 2004, s 212 (HA 2004) came into operation.

COMPLIANCE

The scheme applies to any deposit taken in relation to a new assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 6 April 2007. It is not applicable to continuation tenancies, ie where the tenant stays in occupation as a statutory periodic tenant (Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), s 5)). Section 213(8) requires that the deposit taken by the landlord be money and that it is actually transferred to the landlord. This precludes the tenant from giving

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

Money back guaranteed?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Daniel Dovar and Michael Walsh give their verdict on the tenancy deposit scheme, one year on

Since April 2007, landlords letting property on an assured shorthold tenancy have had to protect any deposit taken under the tenancy deposit scheme. Many of those tenancies have already or will be coming to an end in the next few months. This article addresses what happens if there is a dispute over the return of the deposit. In April 2007, the scheme imposed by Housing Act 2004, s 212 (HA 2004) came into operation.

COMPLIANCE

The scheme applies to any deposit taken in relation to a new assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 6 April 2007. It is not applicable to continuation tenancies, ie where the tenant stays in occupation as a statutory periodic tenant (Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), s 5)). Section 213(8) requires that the deposit taken by the landlord be money and that it is actually transferred to the landlord. This precludes the tenant from giving

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS

NLJ this week: Is inequality undermining trust?

The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles

NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims

A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons

NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law

Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners

NLJ this week: AI privilege battles expose risks

Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost

NLJ this week: Experts warned—AI use must be transparent

New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’

back-to-top-scroll