DPS bad decisions.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    DPS bad decisions.

    I have a question regarding using the DPS because of their apparent bias towards the tenant in the event of any dispute.
    Given that there is no appeal process, no ombudsman and no published figures or statistics of dispute outcomes I have from experience lost not only money but confidence in the scheme and it's practitioners.
    My conclusion is that the taking of a deposit and having to lodge it with the DPS is of no benefit to me as a Landlord as I am extremely unlikely to be reimbursed in the event of any dispute.
    The placing of a deposit is no longer an incentive to tenants to care for the property they rent and consequently a false assurance to would be landlords that they would be fairly compensated for any damage incurred.
    Also given that most deposits are the equivalent to a months rent.
    Would it not make more sense to forgo the deposit process and instead request two months advance rent instead of one?
    I assume this action would be legal and not unacceptable to a conscientious tenant.
    The advantage is that as a landlord you have that extra months rent to return if notice of intent to leave or notice to quit is given.
    If damage has been incurred I feel it would not be unreasonable to use this extra months rent to remedy that damage. Putting the onus on the tenant to explain the damage through the courts if he/she is dissatisfied.

    If this proposal is unjustified; it is of course in the interest of the DPS to seek some justification for their existence, I feel I would lose nothing by simply forgoing the charade of deposit taking.

    If life's experience as a landlord has clouded my judgement please forgive me, I have had good tenants but too many bad ones. It is so hard to predict!

    But trying to circumvent the law and your obligations as a Landlord, by definition, makes you into that bad Landlord. Why do you think anyone on here would give you advice on how to dodge what you should be doing?

    It you don't want to take a deposit, raise the rent amount per month by an amount that will cover you in the eventuality of funds being needed. I'd be interested in what sort of Tenants would be attracted to a "no deposit required" property. It might work.

    Your experience that taking a deposit and lodging it with the DPS is of no benefit to you is pretty astute, right? It's intended to be beneficial to the Tenants! Were you one of the Landlords who saw the deposit as their money and an added perk at the end of the tenancy? If so, then I guess you would not be happy.

    Your thread is titled DPS bad decisions... how are we to know? For example, if you could not be bothered to do an Inventory and then claimed all the deposit with nothing to back that claim up... it would be DPS good decisions.

    If I was a Tenant who knew how things were supposed to work, I would be wary of renting a property from you as I'd realise what you were up to... I would start to worry about what other Landlord obligations you had decided you didn't want to take part in. I would walk away.


      Why not use the courts instead of adjudication then?

      Did you have in all cases inventories & photos countersigned by tenants at start?

      If you read the definition of a deposit in the legislation your "cunning plan" would be likely to be found not 2 months advanced rent but 1 month rent & 1 month deposit & any s21 found invalid & you liable for up to 3x deposit due to non-protection.

      Parliament, for once , spotted what you might do and legislated appropriately.

      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...



        I have a lot of sympathy with Steve. I have never bothered with taking deposits since the legislation came into force. As Hippo mentions, it is obviously intended to benefit the tenant, not the landlord. Around half of my properties are with agents, who have gone through the deposit rigmarole. Even then, I have found it to be costly and unsatisfactory to me.

        The best thing to do Steve is charge as much rent as the market will let you get. Then you will at least have a little extra profit to offset the inevitable trashing.

        BTW. In my experience it's tenants who demand improvements before letting, who won't cut the grass, or hoover the place, during the tenancy.


          The legislation was/is definitely intended to benefit the tenant.

          I'm not sure I agree about the DPS themselves being biased, in most cases I've read about (mostly on here)
          they've just not biased in favour of landlords who expect a tenant to pay in full for a new replacement because of a stain in a five year old carpet or some such.

          I'm sure that there are cases where they've got it wrong, but deposits can be a convenient way of tidying up loose ends quickly,
          but aren't much help when the claims are more than that.

          I'm happy enough to sort out my admin for deposits, but can sympathise with not taking them at all.
          What you can't do is take a deposit and call it something else in order to by-pass the legislation,
          it's good to ask the question, but it's not something to actually do.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


            As has already been said your 'advance rent' scheme to enable you to keep the deposit monies easier at the end of the tenancy is destined to fail. Perhaps your expectations of what you are 'entitled' to keep at the end of the tenancy don't match those of the DPS which is why you feel scorned?
            "I'm afraid I didn't do enough background checks apart from checking her identity on Facebook" - ANON

            What I say is based on my own experience and research - Please don't take as gospel without first checking the gospel yourself.


              Originally posted by Hippogriff View Post
              I'd be interested in what sort of Tenants would be attracted to a "no deposit required" property. It might work.
              Reference Agency LetsXL offers a no deposit warranty covering a maximum of 6 weeks rent and it works very well. It also means you don't have to worry about compliance with the various deposit protection schemes admin problems, or the potential costs of registration if you use an insured scheme. I use it and have found it simplifies the S.21 procedure.
              The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.


              Latest Activity