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

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
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll