header-logo header-logo

13 March 2008 / Daniel Dovar , Michael Walsh
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Money back guaranteed?

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

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
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll