header-logo header-logo

11 March 2010 / Tamsin Cox
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Whose deposit is it anyway?

Tamsin Cox weighs up the successes & failures of the tenancy deposit scheme three years on

The Tenancy Deposit Schemes (TDS) described in ss 213–215 and Sch 10 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) have now been in force for nearly three years, and those who deal regularly with the Assured Shorthold Tenancies to which they relate will now be familiar with the basic requirements and somewhat draconian sanctions imposed on landlords who fail properly to comply with them. However, since the first imposition of the TDS a number of issues have arisen in practice in relation to the interpretation of the provisions of the statute, but there is a dearth of reported authority to assist practitioners. In the last month, however, the first High Court decision on the proper interpretation of the TDS has been published.

The first authority to be made widely available in relation to the TDS was Harvey v Bamforth (2008) 46 EG 119, a decision of His Honour Judge Bullimore in the Sheffield County Court. However,

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll