Non RLA members can still join TDS for Landlords at a slightly higher price, but also with no joining fee and protection for the life of the tenancy instead of an annual renewal arrangement.

It’s good for landlords to have another option though.

My guess is therefore that most LL’s faced with this dilemma simply get rid of the stuff and if necessary deny that it was left behind.

DPS has a clause which allows them to change their terms which are them applicable when issued no matter when the deposit was registered.

So far as DPS’s terms and conditions are concerned, their latest version (December 2011) is version number 18. When a new version is issued they do not inform landlords or tenants. Thus as terms and conditions may change during a tenancy, which version applies – the one which was current when the deposit was protected (and which formed part of Prescribed Information given to the tenant) or any later versions?

But this is just one aspect of a wider problem; that of the three schemes’ administrative rules and how they relate (or don’t) to the purpose and principle of the statutory requirement for deposit protection. For example, MyDeposits (a.k.a. Tenancy Deposit Solutions Ltd) will ‘unprotect’ a deposit if a landlord goes bankrupt, or if he fails to ‘reprotect’ if the fixed term is renewed (but not, without any apparent logic, if it is replaced by a statutory periodic tenancy).

A deposit, once accepted by a scheme as protected, should remain protected, regardless of any subsequent shenanigans by the landlord etc. It should not be the case that the landlord must (sometimes repeatedly) negotiate a minefield of administrative rules in order to ensure that it remains protected.

I presume (hope) that there must be some requirements that the schemes are legally obliged to adhere to; but whatever they are, I suspect they haven’t been thought through very clearly (rather like the Chapter 4 HA2004).

Anyone interested can read it here http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/09/16/dps-tenant-with-ccj-unable-to-claim-back-tenancy-deposit/

Many leases allow the recovery of costs of recovering service charges as a service charge expense themselves. As with all things relating to service charges the starting point is to look at the lease terms. A well drafted service charge provision will allow recovery of such costs even where it is a Leaseholder who applies. Some leases contain provisions which allow costs to be potentially recovered from an offending Leaseholder in total if down to them rather than a general service charge provision but this is unlikely to cover the situation where a Leaseholder challenges the service charge rather than the Freeholder pusuing.

It is therefore a question of understanding the lease. Whilst this may seem unfair on other Leaseholders conversely if the Freeholder incurred costs which they could not recover this could be unfair on them. If a Freeholder has not adequately managed the property and the challenge has been justified the LVT have powers under Section 20C to limit the recoverability of the costs as a service charge expense.

The only real way to stop multiple applications is to ensure that service charges are properly claimed and to try and ensure engagement with the Leaseholders.

Hope this answers the questions.