header-logo header-logo

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

Safe deposits?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll