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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS

NLJ this week: Sanctions ruling casts ‘wide net’ over global finance

A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods

NLJ this week: England’s courts cement status as fraud battleground

Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide

NLJ this week: Mazur ruling puts firms on supervision alert

Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’

NLJ this week: Landlords’ forced entry powers spark legal divide

Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers

NLJ this week: Push to scrap ‘vague’ public office misconduct law

A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence

back-to-top-scroll