Is our deposit claim valid?

Unfortunately where the law is concerned, any chink you leave in your armour gives rise to potential grey areas. That is where the solicitor is wedging his way into, a small chink, creating a grey area.

Personally, I think you are okay, but it always depends on the judge on the day if it gets that far.

The reasons that I think you are okay, are that the tenant had the opportunity to object to your claim and go to arbitration, they didn’t do that. They approved the claim.

The specific wording of the legislation states that the prescribed information be provided “in the prescribed form, or in a form substantially to the same effect”. You have provided all the necessary information on the T&Cs, and it’s in your AST, so although the specific clause of your AST wasn’t flagged in the prescribed information, the information WAS provided and so it is “in a form substantially to the same effect”. You could also argue that the clause was specified in the original PI and that element was unchanged, so wasn’t affected by the change in scheme.

An interesting feature of the deposit legislation which may be relevant here is that in the case of non-compliance with the serving of the PI, or protecting within the prescribed time limit, as we know, a landlord is unable to serve a valid S21. However this is remedied when “the deposit has been returned to the tenant in full or with such deductions as are agreed between the landlord and tenant”.

This strongly suggests to me, that in your case, even were you to agree that the PI was invalid, (which I don’t think it was), you have still returned the deposit, less the agreed deductions.

Again, to be clear, this is MY interpretation only and I’m not a solicitor.

I am inclined to agree with you and the prior respondent that you are ok for the reasons you laid out in your query.

Also the tenant (and their solicitor) must be aware of the DPS’ dispute resolution service & process. Have they raised and disputed directly with the DPS? If so, why not?
I advice you also contact the DPS laying out your case and asking for their written advice/guidance, in particular that your PI is valid.
I also had a similar situation where a solicitor (assigned to me by my Landlords insurance provider) supporting me on a s.21 repossession case insisted that my s.21 notice was invalid because this same clause in PI issued to the tenant was not completed. I contacted MyDeposit (under whose scheme I’d protected the deposit) who confirmed in writing, that their PI doc didn’t need completion as it references the AST for details and circumstances for deposit retention. As long as the AST signed by the tenant, details these circumstances (which mine did), I am compliant.
Needless to say, I fired the solicitor and got another one who found no problems with my s.21 and successfully obtained possession via the court.

Your tenancy agreement almost certainly states the circumstances where the deposit may be retained in part or in full. When preparing the deposit PI, you have to either copy those clauses into the relevant section of the PI form or quote the clause numbers. If you failed to complete that section, then the PI is likely invalid and your claim would fail. Not only that, but the tenant may be able to claim a penalty against you, although under the circumstances I’d be surprised if a court allowed more than 1x the deposit.

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 10/07/2025 – 13:59
This is very helpful and clear.

Thanks

Reply to the comment left by EGN at 10/07/2025 – 15:31
Thanks, we have contacted DPS and they have advised that due to the fact that the deposit has now been paid out and is no longer with them they cannot advise or help out.