Statutory overkill?

23 July 2015 / Mark Tempest

Issue: 7663 / Categories: Features , Property

Mark Tempest provides a refresher course on the tenancy deposit scheme for some light holiday cramming

The Deregulation Act 2015 introduced new provisions into the tenancy deposit protection regime of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). These have reversed the most serious effects of Superstrike v Rodriques [2013] EWCA Civ 669, [2013] All ER (D) 135 (Jun) and confirmed the decision in Charalambous v Ng [2014] EWCA Civ 1604, [2014] All ER (D) 175 (Dec).

Landlords need only protect the deposit once

Section 215 of HA 2004 prevents a landlord holding an unprotected deposit from serving a notice made under s 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) on the tenant. Section 214 exposes a landlord holding an unprotected deposit to the risk of a claim from the tenant for the return of the deposit plus a penalty of up to three times the deposit sum.

In Superstrike, a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy (AST) was granted—and a deposit taken—before ss 214 and 215 came into force in 2007. The fixed term expired

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

Statutory overkill?

Mark Tempest provides a refresher course on the tenancy deposit scheme for some light holiday cramming

Landlords need only protect the deposit once

In Superstrike, a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy (AST) was granted—and a deposit taken—before ss 214 and 215 came into force in 2007. The fixed term expired

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

Read All

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML

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

NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity

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

NLJ this week: A prince no more?

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

NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk

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'

NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law

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

Error message

Statutory overkill?

Landlords need only protect the deposit once

Landlords need only protect the deposit once

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith