A judge said to me recently "A bit of a minefield" to describe the rules on tenancy deposits in the private rented sector.

Private landlords will know how apt a description that can be. At the start of an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) when relations are good between landlord and tenant, the deposit may seem a mere formality. Further down the line when the landlord is resorting to the county court to evict his tenant, he can find himself firmly entrenched in the legal minefield that tenancy deposits can create.

This is the unfortunate situation in which Mariel Pitcher found herself in the recent case of R (Tummond) v Reading County Court and Mariel Pitcher [2014] EWHC 1039 (Admin).

Ms Pitcher owns a property in High Wycombe and described herself to the High Court as taking 'particular pride in ensuring that my obligations as a landlord are fully complied with…'  When she and Mr Tummond entered into an AST of her property on 18 December 2012, she did what many landlords do and served a section 21 notice on the same day - she took a deposit from Mr Tummond and proceeded to protect it in one of the authorised schemes for the protection of tenancy deposits. The deposit was formally protected from 2 January 2013.