Activists claim “high levels of non-compliance by letting agents” when it comes to the return of deposits.

The claim comes on the back of a survey made – according to a statement from the group Generation Rent – online and involving 1,375 “Generation Rent supporters”. However, the group admits fewer than 1,000 of these were actually private tenants.

The group alleges that £5.4 billion of private renters’ cash is held in Britain’s tenancy deposit protection schemes, but apparently one in four renters struggle to get their money back at the end of a tenancy.

It admits that 56% of renters get their full deposit back while 23% “experienced deposit deductions they did not think were reasonable.” Of these, only one in five renters used the deposit scheme’s dispute resolution service.

Generation Rent claims other countries operate systems it says “build greater trust and better outcomes.” These include:

• New Zealand and parts of Australia have introduced passporting of deposits between tenancies, to minimise financial stress when moving;

• Most Australian states invest the deposit funds and use the proceeds to fund support for low-income tenants and, in New South Wales, advocacy services;

• British Columbia imposes strict timescales on landlords to return the deposit, with the amount due sometimes doubled if the deadline is missed.

Data obtained through Freedom of Information requests reveals that the average deposit is worth £1,118 in England and Wales and £793 in Scotland, figures that have increased along with rents over recent years. Around half of tenants are entitled to the interest on their deposits, depending on how the landlord or agent chooses to protect it. 

However, in a statement Generation Rent admits: “For renters who did use the dispute resolution mechanism, the deposit schemes appear to serve them well. Of the 35 tenants in our survey who had disputed their landlord’s claims on the deposit through a deposit protection scheme at the end of their previous tenancy, over half had received more money back than their landlord initially proposed and just three came away with less money than the landlord had proposed.”