Insured vs Custodial Deposit Schemes / TDS vs DPS vs MyDeposits

[jpkeates]

The adjudication process is the same for the insured or the custodial scheme.

[DaddyofTwo]

Go DPS insured. It costs only a few quid and is much less hassle. Eg what happens with a custodial scheme when tenant dies intestate, disappears without notice or you have to bung them money to get rid of them. Possession is none tenths of the law, and the custodial scheme as I understand it has a very rigid and bureaucratic table for assessing damages

[Hippogriff]

The fees are lower for the smaller deposits... so it works (it is worthwhile) for anything I've tried as yet.

[Logical.Lean]

I suppose it depends on size of deposit. £650 isn't worth trying to make money on the interest, so may as well go custodial.

[JK0]

My thoughts might be of interest:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...its-a-pretence

[Hippogriff]

When you pay a deposit back the amount you've offset obviously changes, but that's not a downside, it's just how it is. The money makes itself very useful in quite a short time. The mortgage doesn't increase in any sense.

[jpkeates]

But presumably when you pay it back to a departing tenant, you just lose the offset and (essentially) increase your mortgage again?

[Hippogriff]

The insured schemes have always struck me as fairly pointless although others prefer them as they feel more in control.

That's not the reason I commenced changing... I stuff the deposit funds into an offset account on my own mortgage. It is ring-fenced and untouchable (by my own rules, of course) but it works harder for me than the fee that I pay and it doesn't work hard for the DPS. Several thousand Pounds in an offset can save significantly on your mortgage... plus the offset is a pretty efficient thing to do with money in the first place.

[jpkeates]

I use the DPS custodial scheme and haven't had any problems (but my expectations about deductions are quite realistic).

The insured schemes have always struck me as fairly pointless although others prefer them as they feel more in control.

[andybenw]

I use DPS custodial. Had thoughts of changing to insured as the single claim process takes a bit of time. However, at the end of the day decided to remain custodial for 2 reasons.

1. It's free.
2. I can't be tempted to use the money, so it's always there ready to be returned/claimed.

I only have 4 deposits at a time though and I can see why those with large amounts of property might prefer insured though to promote cashflow.

[theartfullodger]

DPS custodial. No fees, no renewal of registration etc etc..

re

...................and I have another Tenant in another property who is entering into their third fixed-term AST in April 2016. .....

nah, go periodic, less paperwork & you won't be tied up with the new regulations ( of tenancy rather than deposit). Plus more incentive for tenant to stick to terms & easier eviction for you...


Others may hold alternative views...

[Hippogriff]

Are you implying one of the schemes is more favourable towards Landlords than the others?

I think you'd be hopeful.

[EverythingsPeachy]

I will be taking a new deposit from a new Tenant in one property in March 2016 and I have another Tenant in another property who is entering into their third fixed-term AST in April 2016. I have always used the DPS’ Custodial Scheme for all of my deposits.

I’m considering using an Insured Scheme moving forward and am interested in your opinions of Insured vs Custodial and which agency seems to be the preferred one in terms of if there were to be a dispute.