header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 July 2015 / Mark Tempest
Issue: 7663 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Statutory overkill?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll