header-logo header-logo

02 September 2011 / Greville Healey , Jamie Sutherland
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Time out?

How long do a landlord’s obligations & liabilities last under the tenancy deposit scheme, ask Greville Healey & Jamie Sutherland

Late last year, in Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 1224, [2011] 1 All ER 1059, the Court of Appeal considered a landlord’s obligations and liabilities under the tenancy deposit scheme for assured shorthold tenancies introduced by ss 212-215 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). The majority held that the s 214 penalties bite only where the landlord has failed to comply with the initial requirements of a scheme or to provide prescribed information about the tenancy deposit and not where the landlord has failed to perform these obligations within 14 days. The substantive obligations and the time limits imposed by the Act are free-standing requirements and the penalties attach only to the former. So the penalties could be avoided where the landlord complied with the substantive obligations later than the time limits; but how much later? In Tiensia, it was held that the landlord could comply at any time

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