A recent thread on Reddit, entitled “Landlord didn’t put deposit into a deposit scheme” laid bare a growing trend in tenant attitudes.
After receiving a Section 21 notice from their 70 year old landlord, who wanted to sell up and retire, the original poster (OP) discovered their landlord had not put their deposit in a protected scheme within 30 days.
Despite the OP confirming they had had a good relationship with the landlord up to then, rather than viewing the deposit registration failure as a paperwork slip or technical oversight, many posters saw it as a golden opportunity — not only to resist eviction but to punish the landlord and claim as much compensation as possible, with most replies urging the OP not to share the landlord’s option to rectify the situation by returning the deposit before applying for a Section 21.
Tenants Spotting Loopholes
The comments on the thread were revealing:
- Several posters encouraged the tenant to challenge any eviction attempt, pointing out that without the deposit being correctly protected, a landlord cannot serve a valid Section 21 notice.
- Others went further, advising the tenant to pursue compensation of up to three times the deposit amount under current rules.
- Some even suggested dragging out the process deliberately, noting that it could buy the tenant months of extra time in the property rent-free.
The Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of Fairness
It is, of course, a landlord’s legal responsibility to protect deposits within 30 days of receipt. Failure to do so can have significant consequences.
But the Reddit thread captured a troubling mindset: that technical failings are fair game for exploitation. While some tenants were sympathetic, many clearly revelled in the idea of using an oversight as a weapon — even if they had enjoyed years of problem-free renting and full return of their deposit was never in doubt.
The Wider Impact on Landlord Confidence
This kind of attitude only fuels the sense of disillusionment among landlords. Many already feel:
- Demonised by policy: painted as exploitative even when they play by the rules.
- Hemmed in by regulation: small mistakes now carry disproportionately heavy penalties.
- Exploited by opportunistic tenants: who are increasingly advised on forums to “game the system”.
When landlords see online communities advising tenants how to stall evictions and squeeze compensation out of technicalities, it’s hardly surprising that so many are choosing to exit the PRS altogether.
A Call for Balance
There must be safeguards for tenants — nobody disputes that. Deposit protection exists for good reason. But when laws designed to protect renters are turned into a blunt instrument for delay, disruption, and financial punishment, the system stops working as intended.
Oversight should not be a free pass for exploitation. Otherwise, landlords — particularly small, single-property landlords — will conclude that the risk simply isn’t worth the reward.
If you’re a landlord worried about falling foul of technicalities or fed up with unfair treatment, you’re not alone. More and more landlords are deciding enough is enough and choosing to exit the rental market.
At Landlord Sales Agency, we specialise in helping landlords sell quickly, fairly, and with minimal stress — so you can move on without the headaches.