The DPS Again

[Carryon Regardless]

I have a T that's is slipping behind with rents, aye another one.

Last week I logged into the DPS to see that they are waiting for his "Tenant Stat Dec", tenant statutory declaration I assume. There has been no email, or other comms, to me and I am 'assuming' (again) that when he has had this stamped by a local solicitor the DPS will pay him out if that is what he is requesting ??

I spoke with him yesterday and what he is aiming to do is to have the deposit repaid to me to bring his rents into line again, but I don't recall a "Stat Dec" allowing for this as I believe it is designed for a claim to the benefit of the claiming party. Also there is a question asking when the tenancy ended so again 'I assume' that until it has ended this route is inappropriate.

"That DPS is hard work isn't it ?" He said, I can't disagree there.

I would have expected that whenever a claim is raised I would be consulted. The website has no facility for me to make comment or response, in fact the facilities for my being able to claim / request repayment are now removed from this deposit. It is as though I no longer have rights to this deposit.

As there is a G'tor my option for recover via the county court is there but all in all my decision to cease involvements with the DPS is once again justified. I can only hope that as I failed to re serve the prescribed information when this tenancy became periodic (as there was no reason to think I should have 'at that time') that the T is unaware of his possibilities to take me for a further 3x.

I wonder how Pickles is getting on with his desire that we should be further controlled by ill thought out / badly designed legislation.

[Carryon Regardless]

Interesting confirmation of just how screwed up this situation is, and how disinterested to rectify that the powers that be are.

www.depositprotection.com/documents/superstrike-vs-rodrigues-guidance-on-implications.pdf

Nothing new really but coming from the horses ass mouth you would expect just a hint of embarrassment, wouldn't you ?

[Melboy]

One of the reasons COR I pay through gritted teeth and buy the insurance backed option on offer from the DPS.

So far so good and why not, I have the money tucked away in my account and not the DPS ACCOUNT.

[Carryon Regardless]

Hi Mel, I guess you would should still re protect and re serve PI at the start of a SPT ??

This being the 'final' reason for my not wishing to be involved with deposits any longer.

I did all as laid down at that point.

For some reason I did wrong as I should've realised the laid down procedure followed would later be deemed to be wrong, they think, but might change their minds again, if they have a wish to, if this isn't just another sweet way for the perceived rich to give to the abusers poor.

Sorry I'm gnashing my teeth again you see I never agreed with the principle of deposit protection when it was dictated to us. I have always greatly resented the extra faff we are put too and the clear disadvantage to us of it's design. Now to overcome it's inept, non user friendly design I need spend so much more of my time learning it's weird ways and strange illogical procedures.

Of course they won't be wrong, on that day in court it'll be me again.

[Dave A]

Is the insurance option paid once or renewed when a new tenancy is signed?

Dave

[Melboy]

Is the insurance option paid once or renewed when a new tenancy is signed?

Dave

Paid just the once for the tenancy and then obviously if a new tenant takes over your rental property you pay a new fee to the DPS with the new contract..

It's all about having total control over the deposit money and I am much more of a control freak than Mortitia is.

COR

Yes, nobody likes the new deposit rules but unfortunately the law is stacked against the landlord which more or less forces you to comply or face a heavy fine if in default. I have had to have a total re-appraisal on my deposits but I think I have now got it exactly right in complying with the current legistlation well, that is until they move the goal posts again .

[Mortitia]

So Cor, looking at your original post and your disgruntlement with the DPS will you be taking deposits in future or using a different scheme?

I resent all the extra paperwork with tenancies going periodic but I make tenants sign a document to say they have received PI and know where their deposit is and details on taking up tenancy and on going periodic. Not one has failed to sign and return my form yet.

The DPS is easy to use I find and I have only had 1 bad incident but I managed by phoning the DPS to get the deposit suspended in order prevent tenants who seemed to know too much about the system extracting the deposit (and they did not have the repayment ID) which was worrying. The DPS would not tell me how they almost managed it.

[Carryon Regardless]

Well Mortitia the fact that the DPS almost paid out effectively because the T's asked for it shows how wrong this system is.

Back in the old days, and ignoring the claims of so much abuse by LL's, we took a deposit as an incentive, as a compensation for T errors. If a T can do wrong and still gets the deposit, or we have to go through hoops to attempt some compensation it just doesn't work for me.

To compare the old and new way.

Old.

Take deposit and receipt it.

End of tenancy discuss and agree proportioning of deposit or disagree and T has option of County Court for resolution.

New

Pay for check in

Take deposit, wait for monies to clear, lodge deposit at DPS.

Serve 10 pages of PI, and again at each renewal or as tenancy becomes periodic

End of tenancy

Check out

Agree proportioning of deposit or disagree and go to adjudication, with great admin to demonstrate your case, that strongly favours T's.

Wait for 'any' return of monies.

Get it wrong and you can't use a S21 for repossession and T is incentivised by a 4x return..

Any complication and the whole thing becomes clumsy and time consuming.

I accept that the insurance method might be simpler but to be honest I've had enough of having to evolve my style to suit what I see as another modern day corruption. In general I try to keep life simple where I can, the DPS 'aint.

My aim is to dispense with deposits altogether. I save the expence (and hassle) of check ins and outs approx £150 saved. Where I can I'll take an up front admin fee typically £350. My deposits were typically £350 - £500 so now I have that effectively without any risk from deposit legislation and chew dealing with it.

Overall that has to be a winner financially and time spent wise as we can't expect 100% of deposits to come back to us and trying to claim from the DPS is just more hassle.

I also believe that 'all' of us are now at risk of having to pay the penalty for not re serving the PI within 30 days of a tenancy becoming periodic.Why take the risk of this system finding another way to screw us for something else in the future?

I find that a G'tor and a good Deed (mine courtesy of Grampa, thanks again) is the best deterant. In most cases the arrears of rent is the greater loss of a tenancy. It's also the easiest to demonstrate and make claim for in the County Court. Let's face it T's are out to trash a place for some perceived revenge the deposit will go nowhere near compensating that anyway, and most likely there will be arrears also.

I'm still learning though, even if I'd prefer not to have to.

[Dave A]

Couple of points, both raised from attending recent conference, so I'm only speaking as I understood. If I've got this wrong please let me know.

Regarding PI on tenants deposits, we came away from conference understanding that the only way to remain completely risk free is to re serve PI every time there is a new contract, so effectively within 30 days of the start date of every periodic. I.E. in most cases once a month.

I spoke to a rep from RLA who advised that members of RLA can use the TDS insurance scheme at a "discounted rate". I asked about how often the fee had to be paid and was told that "any time the contract changes significantly", I.e. if rent increases or if there is a new tenancy.

Dave

[Grampa]

My council have just improved on the deposit bond scheme where it can now be used for rent arrears as well.

So as no cash deposit changes hands at the start of the tenancy which = no deposit protection needed and no PI issues (including the superstrike knock on).

My council make it very easy to claim on and providing you have a half decent inventory (for damage issues) it is like the old days which was a lot simpler.

The downside is you are taking on a HB tenant which isnt everybodies cup of tea and for some tenants the incentive to leave the property in good order is reduced because they forget the council claw back from them any payments made. But a letter reminding them of that a week before vacating helps.

[Carryon Regardless]

If your Council are taking payments to refund the T later, if I understand correctly, then are they not accruing a deposit ?

Should 'they' not protect this?

Not your problem Grampa and I'm all in favour of anything that reduces our admin loading.

[Grampa]

No funds change hands at the start of the tenancy (so no deposit) but there is a separate agreement between the the council, tenant and agent/LL which allows the council to pay out for damages/arrears out of the councils funds but the council just claims it back from the tenant from any future benefits. After they have vacated your property.

[Carryon Regardless]

Ah, that makes more sense than my confused understanding.

[Chestnut]

Am I the only one who has eyesight trouble reading DPS Custodial Scheme 'Terms and Conditions'?

Having read above that P I is 10 pages long I found only 4 sides of pdf to download, but then found the bit that said to attach T & C - another 4 sides of pdf stuffed full of absolutely tiny print equivalent to more like 12 pages. Enough to put anyone off from using this system.

Would someone like to précis DPS T & C?