header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 February 2011 / Michael Walsh
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Tough sanctions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Walsh revisits tenancy deposit schemes

The Court of Appeal’s recent decision (Rimer, Sedley, Thorpe LJJ) in the conjoined appeals of Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Limited (t/a Universal Estates); Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1224 brings some welcome clarity to the much litigated question as to when a landlord is liable to pay the penalty of three times the deposit for breaching the requirements of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) under the Housing Act 2004.

Since coming into force on 6 April 2007 sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) have required landlords to protect the deposits of their assured shorthold tenants in one of the authorised schemes.

Section 213 (see box) of the HA 2004 requires the landlord to complete two steps upon receipt of his tenant’s deposit:

(i) comply with the “initial requirements”, which means to protect the deposit with one of the authorised schemes; and

(ii) then give the tenant “prescribed information” relating to the protection of the deposit.

The landlord must comply

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll