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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll