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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=a13edd28_1)
