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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll