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
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Is inequality undermining trust?
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
NLJ this week: AI privilege battles expose risks
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
NLJ this week: Experts warned—AI use must be transparent
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll