Are deposit schemes fair to landlords?

I think a lot of councils are going to revert back to Bonds in place of deposits being paid to LL’s on behalf of tenants. (of the PRS still take on such tenants after the RB)

Because there is no physical transfer of cash, this can be agreed in writing BEFORE an AST is entered into. Post RRB this provides some sort of security for a PRS LL perhaps, as well as avoiding the deposit protections schemes and the like.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 08:53

I appreciate your comments, but I didn’t understand this one very well. How do Bonds work?
For the original topic, I am also fed up with the deposit holding agencies and now , If I ever let out again, I will use the insured schemes where I feel more in control. As it happens the only time I used an insured scheme, most recently, the person was an exemplery tenant.

I’ve reached the conclusion that when I take-over management I’ll ask the agent to return the deposit to the tenant. I very much doubt my tenant will do any damage and it doesn’t seem worth the hassle to use a deposit scheme.

Reply to the comment left by Sally Robinson at 01/10/2025 – 10:09
I didn’t like Bonds and started telling the council I’d only take their tenants if they paid me a deposit, which I held with insurance. There’s nothing like holding the money yourself.

Trying to get money back from a deposit scheme is a joke also.

A tenant left one of my rentals in a mess, no surprises there, with damage like torn carpets, bad painting where they painted round furniture!, overgrown gardens etc., many of you will be familiar with this, it cost a couple of grand to put right. I had receipts and tried to claim the deposit from the scheme, but they informed me they could not give it to me unless the tenant agreed, and if they didn’t I’d need a court order to get it back.

That deposit is still with the scheme years later, the tenant won’t sign it over and it would cost more to go to court then the deposit is worth – the laws are just wrong, honest landlords get treated like garbage.

As landlord to our experience with one month’s deposit is nothing compare to the damages tenants cause plus the landlord can’t challege the unfair decisions made by the adjudicator,what kind of law os this?. We have lost lot of money where to repair the damage caused by tenants, we try to find the cheapest builder even then the repairs sometimes are up to fourtimes more against one months deposit. The surprising bit is when the case goes to the adjudicator you end up with half the deposit held and the same tenant can go and rent another place. With renters right bill intoduced all the government and so called Lord’s making these decisions will plunge the econmy into red futther with no landlord investing. Section21 was the only deterrent foolishly to be removed by the goverment which will only give them more headache later on. Section21 should been strengthened with making awkward tenant’s responsible not the opposite. We cannot understand how the county’s economy going to recover by stopping private sector investing further.
Joe

Reply to the comment left by Sangita Gupta at 13:18

I was recently told by TDS, that if there is a dispute, and I wish to go through the court, I have to return the disputed amount to the TDS and make a claim via court within three months. At the end of 3 months, the deposit will have to returned to the tenants.

I was recently told by TDS, that if there is a dispute, and I wish to go through the court, I have to return the disputed amount to the TDS and make a claim via court within three months. At the end of 3 months, the deposit will have to returned to the tenants. So I have now gone via TDS. I believe these tenants are going to lie about the damage caused by them.
I have decided to go via TDS. I have got 3rd party check in and check out done for the property, all the invoices of work done after the check in and same work after the checkout as they messed up the marble bathrooms floors, walls. Other damages, which they created.
Microwave is missing. They have lied to me about the damages and not looked at the check out or list of the items, that I have listed as damages. They are saying that I have charged them for wear and tear, but they won’t tell me which item is charged which is wear and tear. They are not focusing on the reasons why they are charged. It is listed as tenant’s liability or tenants compensation.
TDS give us 5 days to provide so much evidence with documents. Not sufficient space to provide all the information either. The tenants get 5 days to just verify the claim, no evidence needed. How can that be a fair system. It is true the security deposit is tenant’s money but if they do damage it needs to be paid for from the deposit, that is reason, it has been taken from them, as a safeguard.
But it does not work.
So far I have received what I have claimed in the past but this time it is a tricky situation, as the amount is a lot more than the deposit. They only wish to pay for cleaning.

I had a check out report showing extensive damage including rubbish and furniture from the house dumped in the front and back gardens.

Got practically nothing back.

I wonder does any landlord win with this?

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 04/10/2025 – 23:59
“as the amount is a lot more than the deposit.”

Deposit adjudication can only award a maximum of the deposit amount.