A letting agent that is suspected – and no more than that at the moment, so we will not name them – of not protecting tenants’ deposits has come to our attention.
One of the logos it is displaying on its site is that of the Deposit Protection Service, so we asked the DPS if the agents were users of the service.
After a pause, back came the answer that the DPS could not give out this information because of the Data Protection Act.
Since it seems odd that tenants and landlords can’t simply check whether an agent they are thinking of going with uses a particular deposit service, we asked the Tenancy Deposit Scheme if it would tell inquirers whether such-and-such an agent used it.
The answer came back that it would not have a problem, and does indeed regularly get asked this.
We asked Mydeposits the same question, and were again told there is no problem. In fact, this scheme offers a simple online search function that lets you know if a letting agent is registered with the scheme. All you need is the name and postcode of the agent.
It is clearly in the public interest that consumers and nosey journalists, and for that matter schemes such as SAFEagent, should be able to verify claims made, and logos displayed, on an agent’s website.
So, it seems strange that one of the three deposit protection schemes will not give out information, but the other two will.
Was the Data Protection Act really intended to stand in the way of consumer protection?
Comments
I once had Abbey refuse to confirm a payment to Amex as it was a breach of Data Protection..... MY DATA.
We too have a number of agents in our purview where rumour has it they're not protecting deposits.
So without mentioning names, we asked Trading Standards if such a breach of regulations came under their remit to check and enforce. We were flabbergasted to be told formally in writing that this was outside of their jurisdiction. This is what they said in their letter.... "There does not appear to be any enforcement authority that covers this. It may be something that the industry may wish to raise and lobby for".
In other words, its only after the money has gone missing that anything can be done. A bit late I would have thought!
In most cases these things happen because employers are so scared of the consequences that they impose a culture where employees always give the safe answer and are too afraid to use common sense.
No call centre operative ever got disciplined for refusing to give information out which they thought might just possibly be protected, but woe betide them if they did tell someone something they shouldn't have. Therefore "No" becomes the default answer.
That said, there is the odd occasion where somebody is simply stupid such as the BT call centre worker who refused to help because I couldn't answer a security question correctly (fair enough) but also refused to put me through to a manager because "it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act because I don't know who you are".
Frankly its unbelievable - effectively, the DPS are saying that TDS and My Deposits are breaking the Law.
Defamation?
There is an agent near us who has DPS logo but doesn't always register deposits and who is known to have used clients money and often pays landlords very late.
There is a trend which is inescapable.
Sadly, the Logo gives them credibility and despite a number of clients reporting them to TSI, as soon as they pay up - case closed.
It''s just not good enough. But until the public start to understand that only a regulated agent should be used, it wont stop.
Insane.
TPOS, ARLA, SAFEagent etc have a public search function - is this a breach of Data Protection - what about the Anti Money Laundering Register?
Someone is going to end up with egg on face over this.
The Data Protection Act only covers information held on behalf of individuals and not that of Companies. The DPS are therefore wrong in hiding behind the Act as an excuse for not disclosing information that should be in the public domain. How can tenants satisfy themselves that an agent is a member of one of the tenancy deposit schemes before agreeing to rent a property if they cannot check this information with the relevant scheme?
DP Act is one of the most misunderstood and above all mis-quoted pieces of Statute in history for self serving self defence purposes.
If I had a tenner for every time someone had said to me "sorry that's Data protection can't talk about it" when if they understood what they can and cannot do under the Act, I'd be a millionaire.
There is no Date Protection issue here because one of the conditions of membership of all three Schemes is public awareness of membership.
I will tell you what the problem probably is though, and all three schemes are notorious for this.
Who did LAT speak to on this enquiry someone at a very senior manager level? If not and it was simply the standard number and a general staff member then the response does not surprise me in the slightest.
I'll bet good money it wasn't the very helpful Daren King or Kevin Firth or someone of similar authority.