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
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll