header-logo header-logo

Safe deposits?

08 February 2007 / Mark Loveday
Issue: 7259 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Landlords beware—there’s a new regime in town. Mark Loveday reports

Anyone involved in the residential lettings market will be familiar with tenancy deposits. Typically a tenant is required to pay a month’s deposit against failure to pay rent or comply with other tenancy obligations. In central London this may mean tenants coughing up hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds, never to be seen again until their tenancies are over.

The Survey of English Housing recently indicated that 32% of tenants who paid a deposit had it returned only in part or not at all. Of these, 45% believed that the deposit had been withheld unjustly. These disputes don’t seem to have worried litigators much in the past. Woodfall—Landlord & Tenant devotes about seven sentences of its five volumes to the subject of tenancy deposits. However, from 6 April 2007, that may change with the implementation of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004), Ch 4. The legislation aims to remove the risk that rogue landlords and agents might misappropriate deposits, and provide a quick and cheap means

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll