Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether his Department has undertaken analysis of user experience differences between insured and custodial tenancy deposit schemes, including on (a) awareness of dispute rights and (b) ease of navigating end-of-tenancy processes.

My Department engages regularly with stakeholders to discuss the operation and efficacy of the Tenancy Deposit Protection (TDP) system.

This engagement includes gathering information about the difference in service quality between the two types of TDP schemes, and issues that service users may have with these schemes and how they can be addressed.

My Department also receives Key Performance Indicator data from all TDP providers across both types of schemes. Where reporting shows that there are performance issues, we actively escalate matters with the relevant scheme and require them to take corrective action if necessary.

Tenant representative groups consistently report low awareness of the difference between custodial and insured schemes. Under the insured model, tenants who dispute a landlord’s deduction can feel pressured to accept a deduction, rather than pursue Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Where ADR is used, feedback from tenant representative groups report that it operates effectively and the impartial service provided by TDP providers is valued.