header-logo header-logo

23 July 2015 / Mark Tempest
Issue: 7663 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Statutory overkill?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll