TL;DR

A deposit protection schemes comparison comes down to three approved schemes — DPS, TDS, and mydeposits — each offering a custodial product (scheme holds the money, free) and an insured product (landlord holds the money, pays a fee). Adjudication timelines vary: DPS resolves in around 15 working days, mydeposits in around 28, TDS in around 30. All three schemes meet the same Housing Act 2004 protection requirements and carry the same 1–3× deposit penalty for non-compliance. The right choice in any deposit protection schemes comparison depends on portfolio size, whether you self-manage or use an agent, and how much you value cash flow versus simplicity.

Why a deposit protection schemes comparison matters in 2026

Around 4.7 million deposits are currently protected in England and Wales, with an average value of £1,175. The market splits roughly 54% custodial / 46% insured across the three approved schemes. Most landlords default to whichever scheme their letting agent uses or whichever appeared first in a Google search. That decision usually works — all three schemes meet the same legal requirements — but it leaves real differences in cost, cash flow, adjudication style, and operational fit unexamined.

A genuine deposit protection schemes comparison matters in 2026 for two reasons. First, the conversion of every assured shorthold tenancy to an assured periodic tenancy on 1 May 2026 has prompted schemes to take different views on whether prescribed information needs re-serving — and what happens to existing protections at the conversion point. Second, agent-handled deposits and landlord-handled deposits now sit under tightened compliance scrutiny following the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the operational differences between schemes start to matter more.

This guide covers the structural choice between custodial and insured products, the three schemes side by side, where adjudication outcomes actually differ in practice, and how to choose for portfolio size and management model. For the deduction process itself — building the evidence trail, applying betterment, surviving adjudication — see the landlord deposit deduction guide.

Custodial vs insured: the structural choice before scheme choice

Before any deposit protection schemes comparison gets into operator-level detail, the custodial vs insured choice does most of the work. Every approved scheme offers two products, and the choice between them affects cost and cash flow more than the choice between schemes.

Custodial protection means the scheme physically holds the deposit money. The landlord pays the deposit into the scheme within 30 days of receipt; the scheme holds it interest-free until tenancy end; on agreed return, the scheme releases the money to the tenant (and any agreed deductions to the landlord). Custodial is free. The scheme keeps any interest earned on the pooled deposits — that’s how the model is funded. All three approved schemes offer custodial.

Insured protection means the landlord (or agent) holds the deposit money in their own client account, and pays the scheme an annual or per-tenancy fee for the scheme to guarantee its return if a dispute arises. Insured is paid — typically £20–£35 per tenancy depending on scheme and volume. The landlord earns any interest on the held funds (in a properly designated client account) but takes on the cash-management responsibility.

For most single-property landlords, the answer is custodial. It’s free, it’s simple, and there’s no risk of using deposit money for cash flow and being unable to return it. Insured makes more sense at scale — portfolio landlords or letting agents managing dozens of deposits can hold the pooled funds more efficiently than paying multiple sets of scheme fees and may earn meaningful interest.

The 54/46 custodial-to-insured split across the market reflects this: most single landlords go custodial, most portfolio agents go insured.

The three schemes at a glance

This deposit protection schemes comparison summary covers the operational characteristics that actually differ between providers:

All three schemes meet the same Housing Act 2004 protection requirements. All three offer adjudication that is binding on both parties. All three provide a certificate of protection that satisfies the prescribed information requirements when properly served on the tenant within the 30-day window. The differences below sit on top of that common foundation.

DPS: the government-launched default

The Deposit Protection Service is operated by Computershare under contract originally awarded by the then Department for Communities and Local Government when the protection regime launched in April 2007. It is the largest scheme by deposit count, and the natural starting point for any deposit protection schemes comparison.

DPS’s strengths are simplicity and speed. The custodial product runs through a clean online portal with phone backup, the repayment process is well-documented, and adjudication averages 15 working days from full evidence submission — the fastest of the three schemes. For a single-property landlord protecting their first deposit, DPS is the easiest path: register, pay the deposit in, send the certificate to the tenant, done.

Where DPS sits less well is at the higher complexity end. Adjudicators work to a published framework, but the published framework is less detailed than TDS’s, and complex disputes (multiple categories of damage, contested cleaning standards, betterment arguments on partially-depreciated items) sometimes produce thinner reasoned decisions. For straightforward arrears or single-category damage cases, this rarely matters. For multi-issue disputes, it occasionally does.

DPS also runs an insured product alongside the custodial. The insured fee structure is competitive for low-volume landlords but less so at portfolio scale.

TDS: the not-for-profit option

The Tenancy Deposit Scheme is run by TDS Ltd, a company limited by guarantee operating on a not-for-profit basis. It publishes the most detailed adjudicator guidance of the three schemes — a public document running to over 100 pages covering evidence standards, betterment calculations, wear-and-tear apportionment, cleaning thresholds, and worked examples.

The detailed guidance has two practical consequences. First, TDS adjudication outcomes are predictable: landlords with strong evidence and conservative deduction calculations consistently win; landlords with weak evidence or aggressive deduction claims consistently lose. Second, contested cases take longer — ~30 working days from full evidence submission is the typical timeline, the slowest of the three. The trade-off is reasoned, defensible decisions — and in any serious deposit protection schemes comparison, TDS is the benchmark for evidence rigour.

TDS sits well for portfolio landlords and serious self-managing landlords who want the strongest evidence framework. It also publishes annual statistical briefings — including the 4.7 million deposits figure cited above — which makes it the most transparent of the three schemes on market data.

The insured product (TDS Insured) is the larger of TDS’s two products by volume, oriented toward agents and portfolio landlords with established client account capability.

mydeposits: the agent-oriented choice

mydeposits is part of the Hamilton Fraser group, which also operates the Property Redress Scheme, the Client Money Protect scheme, and a number of other lettings-industry compliance tools. Its market position reflects this — mydeposits is over-indexed among letting agents and under-indexed among self-managing landlords.

mydeposits’s typical adjudication timeline of ~28 working days sits between DPS and TDS. The adjudication framework is documented but less comprehensively than TDS’s; in operational terms, mydeposits adjudication outcomes track close to TDS for clear-cut cases and close to DPS for ambiguous ones.

Where mydeposits genuinely earns its place is in agent integration. The portal handles agent-held deposits efficiently, the certificate generation is built for letting agency workflows, and the bundle pricing across Hamilton Fraser products (deposit protection + client money protection + redress scheme membership) is competitive for the lettings industry.

For a self-managing single-property landlord, mydeposits doesn’t offer a meaningful advantage over DPS. For a landlord using an agent, mydeposits is often the path of least resistance because it’s the scheme the agent already uses.

Adjudication in practice: where the schemes really differ

An honest deposit protection schemes comparison gets specific at adjudication. The published statutory maximum for adjudication is 28 days from full evidence submission, common to all three schemes. The typical timeline differences (15 / 28 / 30 working days) reflect operational throughput, not legal entitlement.

Three practical differences matter more than the headline timeline:

Evidence weighting. TDS publishes detailed adjudicator guidance and applies it rigorously. DPS and mydeposits apply similar principles but with less published reasoning. Landlords with strong inventory and check-out documentation tend to succeed across all three schemes; landlords relying on photographs alone do better at DPS, struggle at TDS, and land somewhere between at mydeposits.

Single-claim repayment. If one party (usually the tenant) won’t sign a joint repayment authorisation, all three schemes allow a single-sided claim — but the timeline before the scheme acts on it differs. DPS’s single-claim process is the fastest. TDS and mydeposits run longer initial windows for the other party to respond before treating silence as agreement.

Appeals and re-examination. None of the three schemes offers a true appeal on the merits. All allow procedural challenges only — evidence that wasn’t considered, calculation errors, scheme rule violations. The chance of overturning a substantive adjudication decision is low across all three. The realistic alternative if you disagree with the adjudication outcome is the small claims court, but the courts give significant weight to scheme adjudication decisions and rarely reach materially different outcomes.

For the operational framework — what evidence to build, how to apply betterment, how to present cleaning claims — see the landlord deposit deduction guide. The principles travel across all three schemes.

Choosing the right scheme and switching between them

The practical end of a deposit protection schemes comparison is the fit decision. For most self-managing landlords with a single property or small portfolio, DPS custodial is the practical default: free, fast adjudication, simple interface, large user base. The decision becomes more nuanced as portfolio size and complexity grow.

A rough fit guide:

• Single property, self-managing — DPS custodial
• Small portfolio (2–5 properties), self-managing — DPS custodial or TDS custodial depending on adjudication style preference
• Mid-portfolio (6+ properties), self-managing with strong documentation — TDS insured (cash flow + predictable adjudication)
• Agent-managed — whichever scheme the agent already uses, typically mydeposits or TDS Insured

Switching schemes mid-tenancy is permitted but requires care. The deposit must move between schemes without ever leaving protection. The receiving scheme will issue fresh prescribed information; the original scheme’s protection terminates when the new one’s begins. Most landlords switch only at tenancy end, when the deposit is being returned anyway.

The 1 May 2026 conversion to assured periodic tenancies raised a parallel question: does the prescribed information need re-serving? Schemes have taken different positions, with most treating the conversion as a fresh trigger for service. The safe answer is to re-serve through whichever scheme currently protects the deposit, regardless of scheme. For the detail on this and how long landlords can hold a deposit at tenancy end, see the deposit-hold timing guide and the London tenancy deposit protection guide.

Across all three schemes, the documentation chain — an AIIC-accredited check-in inventory and matching check-out report — does more for adjudication outcomes than the choice of scheme itself.

FAQ

What is the best deposit protection schemes comparison summary for a landlord?

The three approved schemes (DPS, TDS, mydeposits) all meet the same Housing Act 2004 protection requirements. DPS offers the fastest adjudication (~15 working days), TDS publishes the most detailed adjudicator framework, mydeposits is the most agent-oriented. For most self-managing single-property landlords, DPS custodial is the practical default.

Are deposit protection schemes free?

The custodial products of all three schemes are free — the scheme holds the deposit and retains any interest earned. Insured products carry a per-tenancy or annual fee, typically £20–£35 per tenancy. The landlord holds the money under the insured product and earns any interest in a properly designated client account.

Which scheme has the fastest adjudication?

DPS, at approximately 15 working days from full evidence submission. mydeposits runs around 28 working days; TDS around 30. All three schemes are bound by the 28-day statutory maximum from full evidence — but operational throughput varies.

Can I switch deposit protection schemes mid-tenancy?

Yes, but it requires care. The deposit must move between schemes without leaving protection at any point. The receiving scheme issues fresh prescribed information; the original scheme’s protection terminates when the new one’s begins. Most landlords switch only at tenancy end.

Do I need to re-serve prescribed information after 1 May 2026?

The conversion of assured shorthold tenancies to assured periodic tenancies has prompted most schemes to treat the conversion as a fresh trigger for prescribed information service. The safe approach is to re-serve through whichever scheme currently protects the deposit, regardless of which provider you use.

What happens if I miss the 30-day protection deadline?

Same penalty across all three schemes: 1–3× the deposit amount awarded to the tenant in addition to return of the deposit itself. A £2,000 deposit becomes a potential £8,000 liability. The 30-day rule under Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 is unchanged by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

Does scheme choice affect adjudication outcomes?

Marginally. Every honest deposit protection schemes comparison reaches the same conclusion here: the same evidence, presented well, will tend to produce similar outcomes across the three schemes — though TDS gives more detailed reasoning and is stricter on betterment calculations. The choice of scheme matters less than the quality of the inventory, check-out report, and supporting documentation.

Citations

• Legislation.gov.uk — Housing Act 2004, Section 213 (deposit protection): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/213
• Legislation.gov.uk — Renters’ Rights Act 2025: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/30/contents
• Gov.uk — Tenancy deposit protection guidance: https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection
• Gov.uk — Approved tenancy deposit schemes: https://www.gov.uk/deposit-protection-schemes-and-landlords
• Gov.uk — Resolving tenancy deposit disputes: https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/disputes
• TDS Statistical Briefing 2024/25: https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com
• AIIC — Association of Independent Inventory Clerks: https://www.theaiic.co.uk

By Click Inventories Team