A majority of tenants – 65% – say that deductions from their deposits were taken unfairly, with 16% claiming that deductions were made without any reason being offered.
The findings, in a survey by digital inventory company Imfuna, found that on average, tenants have 80% of their deposits returned.
It also found that landlords most commonly make deductions as a result of outstanding rent (70%), closely followed by cleaning costs (69%).
Damage to the structure of the house (45%), to furniture (39%) and to appliances (38%) were the next main reasons for making deductions.
However, 7% of landlords claimed never to have withheld money from a tenant’s deposit.
.png)
Comments
Whom to complain if letting agency deduct unfairly deposit amount. Do we need to go to Ombudsman/solicitor. Where are our rights and where we stand.
I explain in detail to tenants at the start of all tenancies how TDS works and that ADR exists. Despite this, tenants are all too often required to endure a deduction from their deposit when their tenancy ends; only those that deliberately don't sort the property out according to guidance notes are 'happy' with the deductions, yet disputes are extremely few; we've had just three since the scheme began.
A much better measure than just asking 'did you think the deduction was fair?'
Tenant does their bit - no deduction. Anything deducted and proven to be a deduction shut up tenant and stop moaning. I don’t care if I have to deduct and have no conscience at all. I send a list of what to do and if they don’t there is a cost. Tough.
@ Jax Kneppers
Jax & the beanstalk, come and buy my magic beans that will stop tenants complaining,
Now that would magic.
@IndustryObserve
I say again the Landlord and agent no longer control and dictate the destiny of the deposit at end of tenancy.
I agree with you there .... because the destiny of the deposit is decided at the beginning of the tenancy, not the end.
By that, I mean that the tenancy must be set up correctly with a correctly worded AST, along with a robust and detailed inventory/schedule of condition.
The outcome of the tenancy is decided at the beginning, not the end, by setting it up correctly in the first place.
Tenants can not seek to have a full deposit returned if the inventory/schedule of condition proves that they have damaged the property, removed or broken itmes, or not left it in the same condition that they found it in.
@ Jax Kneppers
"For me, the key to reducing the number of tenants who feel they have been treated unfairly is less about the reductions themselves, and more about the manner in which they are taken."
Jax I have no idea if you are the Tenant Protection Police or something but why would you worry about whether tenants have been treated unfairly or not? That role is already more than adequately filled by CAB and Shelter!!
Anyway back to the plot.
It doesn't matter how good the inventory is all the tenant has to do is cry "foul" - or more correctly "I object you are not having my money I want to raise a dispute" and the Landlord/agent are stopped dead in their tracks and then must justify to a third party who starts out on the tenant's side why they should keep some or all of the tenant's money.
This survey and your comments read as though written pre TDP the world has moved on. "Tenants say deductions were made unfairly" - yeh they said that to CAB in 1998 and look where that got us.
You are aware I assume that the inventory will not cover all matters a Landlord might want deductions for - like rent. When again all the tenant does is raise a dispute and then counterclaim for lack of repairs or similar just as they often do in Court.
I say again the Landlord and agent no longer control and dictate the destiny of the deposit at end of tenancy unless of course the tenant is told what deductions are going to be made and doesn't raise any objections.
To clarify, we surveyed 1,000 tenants in the UK, split across a variety of geographies. The majority (50%) however were based in London and the SE.
For me, the key to reducing the number of tenants who feel they have been treated unfairly is less about the reductions themselves, and more about the manner in which they are taken. The inventory report has a fundamental role to play in this respect, if a transparent and robust report which combines standardised terms and corroborative data has been conducted at check-in, the tenant will be far less likely to cry foul at check-out.
I am with Industry Observer on this one. IF 65% of tenants are unhappy - what is they are concerned with?
Was the agent acting on a frolic of their own or the decision of the ADR?
If its the former - then it's clear tenants are unaware of their rights and perhaps failed to read the prescribed terms - if its the latter then, hey, no one likes losing and perhaps the agents should have explained expectations more thoroughly.
The problem with compromise in resolution at agent level is that you effectively fail to provide either party with what they want.
Interesting - but requires context. 65% of what? Ave length of tenure. Principal reasons for deductions - was the case referred to ADR?
In my experience tenants generally fall into two categories: 1. Those who maker a real effort to return the property in good condition with only a few minor problems (the extractor hood filter is often forgotten). 2. Those who do little or nothing and accept that they will be charged for cleaning etc.
We prepare our own Schedule of Condition and Inventory and give the tenants 10 days from the start of their tenancy to advise us of any amendments they wish to have recorded. They are also given a Tenants Guide at the start of their tenancy which advises them how to combat such items as condensation etc. At the time their notice is acknowledged they are provided with a check list relating to how we expect them to return the property.
We therefore very rarely have any problems and have only had a couple of disputes referred to TDS which, in both cases, were as a result of landlords deciding they wanted to claim for damage that we felt was fair, wear and tear - they both lost their disputes!
Sorry but am I missing something here, or does this survey relate to non ASTs?
Landlords propose deductions they do not "make"them. Sounds to me like the majority of tenants don't (mercifully) know their rights and that ADR exists. I always thought dispute figures seemed surprisingly low - now we know why.
How can it be unfair?
Firstly the tenant can dispute any proposed deduction given the TDP lunacy of no minimum claim/excess etc applying to disputes.
Second the dispute and awards from it are then independently assessed by Scheme adjudicators. It isn't Landlords making deductions at all (unless my first comment on ignorance of free ADR availability applies)
Seems no-one is happy because other surveys show Landlords think TDP is heavili biased in favour of the tenant which it inherently is. Because it is the tenants money and the Landlord has to prove his case to justify any deductions - or in other words move heaven and earth to convince the adjudicator.
Therte is a solution of course. It is a common misconception that after ADR neither party can go to FCourt. They can - the scheme is only binding in terms of its decision and what happens initially to the deposit. If either party still feels aggrieved they can go to Court and see if they can persuade a Judge that the adjudicator has been unfair.
Unless there has been an error at Law or a failure to follow the rules of natural justice it is extremely unlikely a Landlord would win against an adjudication a Judge can hide behind.
Why does no one ever survey landlords, and see how they feel about having their investments damaged, left dirty, stolen etc etc.
I'm suprised this 'story' doesn't have the usual tagline "of copurse, if they used our inventory services blah blah blah"
"Tenants complain about unfair deposit deductions"
They would say that wouldn't they.......
The results are surprising, surely the Tenant Deposiit Scheme exists to prevent this type of event.
Imfuna quote % but do not inform us of the total amount (numbers) of tenants complaining and which geographical area they relate too.
Surely this piece is inferring that the Deposit Scheme is not working or it relates to Scotland where the Deposit Scheme launches on 02.07.12.
Another case of the poor little victim tenant v. the demon ogre landlord. I am surprised that the (charity?) Shelter are not jumping on board.
Some clarity required please.