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
NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Push to scrap ‘vague’ public office misconduct law
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
NLJ this week: World Cup faces legal storm before kick-off
FIFA’s 2026 Men's World Cup is already mired in controversy, with complaints over ‘excessive prices’ and opaque ticketing. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys warns that governing bodies may face scrutiny under EU competition law, with allegations of a ‘dominant—if not monopolistic—position’ in ticket sales
NLJ this week: Trade mark practice splits widen post-Brexit
Ten years after Brexit, UK and EU trade mark regimes are drifting apart in practice if not principle. Writing in NLJ this week, Roger Lush and Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford highlight tighter UK scrutiny after SkyKick, where overly broad filings may signal ‘bad faith’
NLJ this week: Sanctions ruling casts ‘wide net’ over global finance
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
NLJ this week: England’s courts cement status as fraud battleground
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll