Under the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, L has 14 days in which to deposit the money with an authorised scheme, and 14 days to give ‘prescribed information’ to T. Failure on either account means that the court must order L to pay T a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit.

Many County Courts are struggling to come to terms with the rigidity of the scheme, which has much potential for inequitable and unjust results. The most quoted authority is Harvey [2008], where it was held that L was not liable for the penalty where he had protected the deposit, but failed to provide the information to T within 14 days. But, that decision was distinguished in Seghier [2009] where L also failed to provide the prescribed information within the time. Another decision is Anderson [2009], where a letting agent successfully opposed the claim on the basis that the prescribed information had been supplied to T before the application was heard by the court.

Other uncertainties with the legislation include doubt as to whether it applies only to current Ts (ie if the tenancy has come to an end it seems unlikely that the provisions can apply). Another problem is the complete lack of a definition of ‘landlord’, and the liability of letting agents. For a review of the authorities, and a discussion of potential liabilities, see useful article in [2009] NLJ 1127.