x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

A letting agent has accused the TDS of failing to address the fundamental problem of tenants raising spurious disputes, knowing that it costs them nothing to do so and they might as well “gamble on recovering some of their money”.

Ian Sanford, managing director of Pennington Properties in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, wrote to TDS chairman Professor Martin Partington following the TDS’s latest letter and invoices to its members.

Sanford wrote: “It would appear, reading between the lines, that TDS would rather agents themselves paid for dilapidations to properties to keep their landlords happy and refunded deposits to tenants in full to avoid the likelihood of a dispute being instigated – hardly a fair and equable system.”

He added: “I am also concerned about your comments regarding the fact that you are increasingly relying on your own resources or your insurance policy to return deposits. Surely you should not be accepting an agent into the scheme who does not comply with the strict accounting regime required by ARLA. If you are accepting less than this standard, then I am not surprised that you are experiencing problems.

“Disputes raised by tenants appear to be accepted on face value by your office and once in the system become registered against that agent, whatever their merits, thereby effectively increasing the agent’s subscription.

“We recently had a situation where we initially paid tenants back part of their deposit and advised them that, because of some apparent damage to the carpets, we were having them examined by a carpet contractor, and that, until we received his report, we would be unable to deal with the balance of their deposit. In the event, following receipt of the report, the landlords accepted the damage as ‘fair wear and tear’. The tenants were then refunded the balance of their deposit but in the meantime had raised a dispute with TDS, so another one was ‘chalked up’ against us.”

He said the first he knew that the tenants were disputing the deductions was when paperwork was received from the TDS.

He said: “Would it not be sensible, when receiving disputes from tenants, for your office to email the agent first to ask whether the matter was still subject to negotiation, whether the agent intended to go to adjudication or maybe even settle with the tenant if the amount was deemed to be trivial, before entering the case into the system?”

Sanford also said that, contrary to prescribed procedures, the TDS apparently allows to raise disputes up to six months after the end of the tenancy – “a period which is totally unreasonable and disadvantageous to the agent and landlord when monies will have already been disbursed”.

Sanford went on: “It is interesting to note that the other two tenancy deposit protection schemes do not appear to be suffering the same problems as TDS with an escalating number of disputes. Perhaps TDS should consult with them to find out why this is the case.”

He concluded: “Although I agree entirely with the principal of deposit protection, I believe that the scheme is flawed and that you should be lobbying the new Government to change the rules so that tenants and landlords pay a modest fee of, say, £25, when raising a dispute. This fee would be repaid if the dispute was well-founded but forfeited if found to be spurious. The benefits of this arrangement would be to help eliminate disputes raised for small amounts and possibly bring some welcome additional income for TDS.”

Comments

  • icon

    Arla or whatever they are called these days grab your fees and do precious little to protect your interests in these issues. I mean what other industry would allow the present Tenancy Deposit Scheme to basically do what it likes without some representitive body standing up and doing something about it. The whole system of disputes needs a massive overhaul because at present and I speak from experience we supply AST's inventories, check out reports, photos, temrs and conditions and the tenant supplies a letter without any evidence at all and wins!!! and everyone just gets on with it - its quite unbelievable. Citizens Advice would lobby for the tenant in a heartbeat if this system was the other way round.

    • 13 August 2010 12:58 PM
  • icon

    I hereby call on the NFoPP (ARLA & NAEA)to stand up and be counted. Perhaps the organisation could offer a 'members representative' prepared to consult with the TDS in cases where the evidence is not clear-cut. Or am I being naive as I understand TDS is backed with ARLA money?

    • 12 August 2010 19:15 PM
  • icon

    Where is the NFoPP, their NAEA and ARLA in anything that could be even a little contentious that negatively affects their members?

    • 12 August 2010 16:44 PM
  • icon

    Absolutely right. I have been banging on about the complete unfairness of this ridiculous system and in particular the Dispute Resolution Service which is so badly biased words fail me. It seems no matter what we submit evidence the Scheme finds against us due to some minor issue. It is disgraceful and we really need ARLA to stand up to this. Where on earth are they??

    • 12 August 2010 16:21 PM
  • icon

    Ian Sandford is absolutely right when he says the TDS appear to accept the tenants word at face value. A tenant of ours vacated a clients property two months early without giving notice. He took the matter to the TDS when we retained his deposit in lieu of the outstanding rent. When the tenant was asked by the TDS for proof that he gave notice he simply produced a pre-dated 'copy' letter allegedly hand delivered to our offices despite our extensive efforts to contact him beforehand. I complained to the TDS on the 'balance of probability' who replied that they were not in a position to challenge the tenants proof.

    • 12 August 2010 06:38 AM
  • icon

    Ian Sanford & Industry Observer.
    I agree with you both - especially the point that a tenant should pay a fee but returnable if found fully in his favour? Unfortunately the basic legislation would have to be changed.

    • 11 August 2010 14:36 PM
  • icon

    Ian you are 100% right in everything you say but sadly nothing will change. The single biggest flaw ion the TDP schemes - and there are many - is the ability of a tenant to raise a dispute at little or no cost to themselves. Two things are needed - a minimum dispute level probably at least £100 and as you say a fee returnable to a tenant on a %age basis of ehat they are awarded. So if they get all the deposit they get it all back, half the deposit = 50% of the fee and so on. The fee should be at least £50. Everyone involved in setting up these schemes - a classic example of too many cooks - bottled this are and that of the tenant having to be up to date on their rent before they could raise a dispute. They hid behind the right to set off totally misunderstanding how at Law that works and who can do what and when and, above all, cannot do what and when in terms of self assessind compensation. But again the question is begged - why have anything other than a Custodial scheme?

    • 11 August 2010 11:32 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal