header-logo header-logo

13 March 2008 / Daniel Dovar , Michael Walsh
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Money back guaranteed?

Daniel Dovar and Michael Walsh give their verdict on the tenancy deposit scheme, one year on

Since April 2007, landlords letting property on an assured shorthold tenancy have had to protect any deposit taken under the tenancy deposit scheme. Many of those tenancies have already or will be coming to an end in the next few months. This article addresses what happens if there is a dispute over the return of the deposit. In April 2007, the scheme imposed by Housing Act 2004, s 212 (HA 2004) came into operation.

 

COMPLIANCE

The scheme applies to any deposit taken in relation to a new assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 6 April 2007. It is not applicable to continuation tenancies, ie where the tenant stays in occupation as a statutory periodic tenant (Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), s 5)). Section 213(8) requires that the deposit taken by the landlord be money and that it is actually transferred to the landlord. This precludes the tenant from giving a credit card impression or writing a cheque that is not banked.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll