As president of the National Federation of Residential Landlords (NFRL), I have read with interest the correspondence on this subject (Letters, May 12).

My organisation, NFRL, has made it clear it has no time whatsoever for any landlord who unlawfully withholds a deposit due to be returned to a tenant.

Most deposits, however, are dealt with by landlords in an even-handed manner and very few go to dispute.

The NFRL saw no reason for Government legislation to protect all deposits but supported procedures to deal with deposit disputes quickly and effectively without the need to use the county court.

What has happened, however, is that all deposits taken on or after April 6 are now protected by law (if an assured shorthold tenancy is granted) and if a landlord fails to register a deposit he/she can be forced to pay three times the value of that deposit to the tenant for simply failing to register it.

In addition, a landlord cannot seek eviction under the normal procedures while a deposit is not properly registered.

If a landlord chooses to retain the deposit throughout the tenancy, there are significant fees to be paid for its registration, in addition to administrative burdens, which also apply to the custodial scheme.

It is not correct, therefore, to say there are no costs associated with the regulation of deposits. There are, and they will be substantial to the industry and no doubt will be charged to the tenant in the form of additional costs when the tenancy is accepted.

At the end of a tenancy, where there is no dispute, the deposit will be returned to the tenant and if there is an agreed deduction, that would take place without cause for an adjudication.

However, if a tenant damages the property or leaves it in a poor state and fails to pay the last month's rent, knowing his/her deposit will not be returned, the landlord is then left with the job of recovering the deposit or releasing it from insurance to cover the rent not paid and consequently has no money left to deal with the damage caused.

The Government believes tenants will pay the full rent due, knowing their deposit is secure, but has omitted to accept that some tenants, knowing that their deposit will be retained by the landlord, will fail to pay rent to compensate for this fact and the landlord is then left with no option but to pursue the tenant through the county court for the cost of putting right damage - and that is if the tenant can be found.

Government has on the one hand protected tenants' deposits, with severe penalties against landlords who fail to register them, but on the other hand is allowing tenants who cause damage to walk away without paying the last month's rent and has not produced any legislation to protect the landlord against such acts.

  • Mike Stimpson, National Federation of Residential Landlords, Camden Street, Portslade