header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 March 2010 / Tamsin Cox
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Whose deposit is it anyway?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll