An extraordinary disparity in results has been revealed between one of the tenancy deposit protection schemes and the others.
MyDeposits, a spin-off of the National Landlords Association which is run by insurance firm Hamilton Fraser, finds in favour of the tenants in 70% of cases.
That figure compares with a 57% rate of finding in favour of tenants by the Deposit Protection Scheme (custodial) and 50% by the DPS’s insurance-backed scheme.
It also compares with 51% by the Tenancy Deposit Scheme.
It means that landlords using MyDeposits have only a 30% chance of success, compared with a win rate of between 43% and 50% if using the other schemes.
Figures, released in a written answer by housing minister Brandon Lewis to Tory MP Guto Bebb, show that overall, 42% of disputes were resolved in favour of the landlord and 58% in favour of the tenants between April 2013 and the end of March 2014.
Lewis gave this breakdown:
| Scheme | Total Number of disputes | % in favour of Landlord | % in favour of Tenant |
| Deposit Protection Scheme Custodial | 8,945 | 43 | 57 |
| Deposit Protection Scheme Insurance | 12 | 50 | 50 |
| MyDeposits | 6,590 | 30 | 70 |
| Tenancy Deposit Scheme | 9,482 | 49 | 51 |
Surely these figures can't be right. If you believe all the propaganda from Shelter we would be lead to think that Landlords are triumphant in 99% of cases!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It seems to me that MyDeposits is favoured by private landlords who also skimp on inventories. A professional agent is more likely to use one of the other schemes as they are cheaper if you're a member of a professional body. Mystery solved. Correlation is not causation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
My thoughts exactly. We use DPS for our managed properties and have never even had a dispute raised. Many of the tenant find only landlords tend to favour MyDeposits and we are regularly informed of 'debates' between the parties at end of tenancy.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Absolutely. An agents experience goes a long way in protecting landlord's interests and these figures indicate an average 55% improvement in deposit protection schemes favouring an agent over a private landlord.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It may be that agents just take the easy option and not put a claim in, as it is the landlords money after all, not their own.
Or it could be that the tenant mix is not the same; with some private landlords have more tenants in the low end of the market then agents do.
Or it could be that agents tent to spend a lot more on inventories then private landlords, even then you have to ask if on average the cost of the loses the inventories prevent are more than the cost of doing them….
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Still a need for deposit regulation? costs tenants nothing to dispute. Still favored the old ways of the tenant if unhappy going to court to start a court action – it stopped a lot of nonsense all round and frivolous claims.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It is also probably fair to point out, that my|deposits has a far higher proportion of unaccredited letting agents using their scheme than DPS (Insd) & TDS Ltd, who don't necessarily operate to the higher standards expected of 'regulated' organisations.
I have said repeatedly that unaccredited agents should not be allowed to access insured TDP facilities, if only because of the lack of CMP. It appears that balance of dispute determination may well be another reason for DCLG imposing such a restriction?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not so cut and dried though is it? Some items go in the landlord's favour and some in the tenant's – did whoever produced this report actually work out the percentage breakdown of each claim? Nah, would need too much computing power.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I do not have a lettings side of the business, thought about it many times but seems like a very thank less process and lots of red tape. Is it worth the hassle, should I look at it again? and which deposit system and why do you use?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
MyDeposits shows that the organisation is not a "poodle" of landlords, despite being 50% owned by The National Landlords Association.
I also suspect that the landlords who lose are unlikely to have taken a proper inventory.
Yet even the "professionals" who are using TDS and are all members of a professional body (ARLA & RICS) are getting it wrong, 4,835 times on these figures.
I would have expected the figures to be lower than 51%.
Perhaps, just as been done with employment tribunals, the complainant should put some money "upfront" to stop opportunistic claims.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
How was it recorded if the landlord was rewarded money, but less then what they asked for?
(I have a ongoing deposit dispute when I have asked for a lot more then I was have settled for of the tenant had admitted to the lack of cleaning.)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register