header-logo header-logo

Time out?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll