header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Tough sanctions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
24 February 2011 / Michael Walsh
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

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
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll