Hi Clifford,

Thank you for your review.

To alleviate your concerns, the deposit claim that you refer to was settled by the Deposit Protection Service’s (DPS’) Alternative Dispute Resolution team, which is the dedicated process if a settlement cannot be found between landlord and contract-holder. We provided the DPS with all the evidence we were required to provide for the claim made on behalf of the landlord, and they later paid the landlord the total sum claimed.

Occupation contracts are between the contract-holder(s) and the landlord. Therefore, if there are ever any proposed deposit deductions to claim for at the end of the tenancy, it is the landlord who chooses to submit this claim. We would much prefer not have to make a claim from a deposit. We don't profit in any way from said deductions, and it's far quicker and easier to return a deposit in full.

Our contract with the landlord stipulates that we will document the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy (as we also do at the beginning of each tenancy), then provide this report to them for their assessment, as – again – being the owner of the property, they are the decision maker. Within the report, we highlight items that we believe are a result of wear and tear, therefore the responsibility of the landlord to make good before any new contract-holders arrive. We also highlight any items we believe to be over and beyond fair wear and tear, which – if substantially different to the condition at the start of the tenancy – he/she may wish to claim from the deposit for. Once the landlord has decided how they wish to proceed, we add comments to the inspection report and send it over to the contract-holder(s) for their perusal. We invite contract-holders to comment on anything noted as being over and beyond fair wear and tear. This demonstrates a transparent, two-way process that is geared towards avoiding any potential deposit dispute. When contract-holders provide their comments, as we always encourage them to do, we revert back to the landlord and attempt to negotiate the deposit return of behalf of both.

We feel it's important to point out that it's not uncommon for there to be a dispute at the end of a tenancy. Quite rightly, contract-holders are keen to receive as much of their deposit back as possible, whereas landlords would like to be compensated for any dilapidation they believe is not a result of wear and tear. So, by virtue of their own standpoints, deposit claims are a contentious matter. Thankfully, the process described earlier in this reply successfully resolves the vast majority of potential deposit disputes before they become protracted, which we think is something that should be commended.

As with any deposit return, if a contract-holder feels a landlord's claim is not justified and a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the deposit scheme that protects the deposit can appoint an unbiased, impartial adjudicator to consider all evidence and make a ruling. We're pleased to say that the vast majority of deposits CPS Homes returns are done so with mutual agreement between landlord and contract-holder, meaning only a small minority require independent adjudication.

Finally, many letting agents are family-run businesses where issuing work to relatives or known acquaintances is commonplace. There is no law or guidance that prevents this. Providing the persons or companies instructed meet the landlord/letting agent's standards, are capable of completing the job asked of them and charge fairly for their time, there is no reason why such work should not be passed their way. In the same respect, some private landlords are builders, plumbers, carpenters etc by trade, so will carry out their own work on properties they own at the end of a tenancy. It is ultimately a landlord's choice as to who carries out the work and we do not believe they should be hamstrung because of their choice of profession.

All the best,

The CPS Homes Team.