header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll