Disputes about tenancy deposits are raised almost equally by both sides: 48% of disputes are raised by landlords or their agents, and 51% by tenants.
But tenants stand a better chance of winning all of their deposits back, and if they were to insist on their landlord using MyDeposits, they would stand an almost 50% chance.
The finding comes in an evaluation of compulsory tenancy deposit protection five years after it became law in England and Wales.
Written by Steve Harriott, chief executive of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, the evaluation report highlights the difference in awards made by the three different schemes following dispute resolution. In the year to March, there were a total of 20,279 disputes.
The evaluation shows that there are marked differences between the proportions awarded across the three deposit protection schemes in the last five years, despite the fact that all three schemes apparently operate very similar adjudication processes.
A landlord seems most likely to win 100% of the deposit with the TDS, a little less so with the Deposit Protection Service, and be very unlikely to win it with MyDeposits. From a tenant’s perspective, the easy win is MyDeposits, followed closely by DPS, with TDS a long way behind.
However, in all three schemes, the tenant is more likely to be awarded the full deposit than the landlord, and the majority of disputes end up in awards being split.
The figures are: with the TDS, tenants get the full disputed deposit in 22.84% of cases, whereas landlords are awarded it in 19.22% of cases. A total of 57.94% of disputes end in a split award.
With the DPS, 19.1% of disputes are found in favour of the landlord, and 41.5% in favour of the tenant. A total of 39.4% of cases lead to a split award.
With MyDeposits, 48.48% of awards were made in full to the tenant and just 7.81% to the landlord. A total of 43.7% of cases ended in split awards.
The disparate sets of figures are due to be scrutinised shortly, with the two insurance-backed schemes, TDS and Mydeposits, spun off from the National Landlords Association, next month due to re-tender for new five-year contracts.
.png)
Comments
Regardless whether a landlord uses a managing agent or not a good quality inventory and a check-in report by a professional INDEPENDENT inventory clerk is absolutely key to ensuring that deposit moneys are allocated to the correct party.
Vaida Filmanaviciute
Lettings Manager at The Islington Company
http://www.theislingtoncompany.co.uk
The figures where schemes are in favour of tenants is wrong!! It actually proves how bad agents/landlords evidence is. At the end of the day the deposit is the tenants -the onus is on the landlord/agent to prove otherwise. so no check in and out report and or photographs signed by both parties - if there is no proof of agreement what the property was before and after is never going to stand up if not provided! agents/landlords not keeping any/all communication again is another!!
don’t forget the ADR process is evidence based only, no one is visited or contacted (unless the adjudicator needs clarification)
As a landlord, I am questioning if it is every worth letting a dispute go to the deposit protection, rather than using my right to take the dispute to the small claims court.
(Also I expect with TDS, the number of wins for landlord may be down to agents knowing when they may not win and just not trying, after all it’s the landlord’s money not the agent’s money!)
Something badly wrong here the figures should not vary so widely.
In the case of TDS one would expect the landlord to win outright more often, and to do better generally. That is because in the vast majority of those dispoutes the case is being presented for them by an agent.
In the other two schemes the majorityt of the time the dispute is being presented by the landlord themselves.
Another good reason for using an agent perhaps and why self management is a false economy?