By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Scottish landlords praised for ‘taking their legal responsibilities seriously’

Buy-to-let landlords north of the border have been applauded for renting responsibly after SafeDeposits Scotland researched rates of landlords failing to protect tenants’ deposits.

Landlords of rented properties in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire have been proved most responsible, with just 17 cases relating to properties with AB postcodes of landlords being taken to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber) by their tenants for failing to protect their deposits, according to SafeDeposits Scotland.

Rented properties in Glasgow accounted for the greatest number of cases heard by the Tribunal, closely followed by Edinburgh, with 38 and 37 cases respectively, the data from the government-backed deposit scheme shows.


SafeDeposits Scotland has studied decisions made by the Tribunal since it began hearing cases of non-compliance with deposit protection at the end of 2017. It found that £13,169 had been paid out to tenants in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire, the equivalent of around £770 per case.

Although landlords can be fined up to three times the deposit value, the average award for the Aberdeen cases studied is 1.54 times the deposit value.

The largest award was made to tenants renting a property in the village of Monymusk, where the landlord was ordered to pay out £1,725, and the lowest was £100 for a property near the University of Aberdeen.

Ian Potter, chair of SafeDeposits Scotland, commented: “While there were 17 instances of North East landlords being taken to the Tribunal by their tenants, to put that into context; SafeDeposits Scotland protects the deposits of almost 15,000 tenants in the area.

“It’s great to see the overwhelming majority of landlords taking their legal responsibilities seriously and looking after their tenants’ deposits.

“Deposit protection legislation is designed to protect all parties involved in the private rented sector and costs landlords nothing to comply with. The schemes also offer free and impartial adjudication services to ensure that any deductions from deposits are fair and can be scrutinised.

“We believe that the overwhelming majority of landlords operate within the rules, but the findings from our research into the first 18 months of the First-tier Tribunal demonstrates that there are still some out there who don’t.

“In most of the cases we’ve looked at, the landlord has not acted out of malice, but was either simply unaware of the legislation or forgot, however, that does not reassure tenants or save landlords from fines.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

Poll: Do you own property in Scotland?


  • icon

    So 17 out of 15000 landlords flouted the law, which is less than 0.1%, meaning over 99.9% met their obligations. I haven't yet dealt with 1000 tenants but I have certainly had more than 1 tenant acting irresponsibly and illegally.

    I wonder what % of tenants act equally responsibly in meeting their obligations?


    That would be nice to know wouldn't it.

  • icon
    • 16 August 2019 17:50 PM

    As far as I am aware tenants are able to avoid their contractual and legal obligations with impunity.
    It seems that the service users are effectively facilitated by Govt to avoid and evade their obligations whilst the service providers are treated appallingly out of all proportion to the errors that inevitably a very small number of LL make.
    It is highly doubtful that LL have caused tenants £9 billion in losses on an annual basis!!!!!????
    Yet tenants have in fact caused these losses to service providers.
    It seems that service users are effectively allowed to get away with their obligations whilst the service providers are penalised for what are in the overall scheme of things very minor issues.
    The whole situation seems to be completely out of proportion to what had occurred in a few minor cases.
    Yet it seems these minor cases are extrapolated from as being representative of all of the PRS and is then cited as reasons for further penal regulations to be introduced.
    It is clearly barmy!!
    Surely the position of service providers who are being defrauded and robbed deserve more protection from the very significant numbers of rogue tenants!?
    I cannot think of a single other industry where the users are effectively permitted to avoid their contractual obligations.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up