Custodial vs Insured Deposit Scheme: Which Is Right for Your Rental?

Two Models for the Same Legal Obligation

Every approved deposit protection scheme in England — DPS, TDS and mydeposits — offers two models: custodial and insured. Both satisfy Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 equally. The 30-day deadline, the Prescribed Information requirements and the penalties for non-compliance are identical. The difference is in who holds the money and what that costs.

How Custodial Protection Works

Under the custodial model, you transfer the tenant's deposit directly to the scheme. It sits in a ring-fenced bank account managed by the scheme operator for the entire tenancy. You cannot access, spend or invest the funds during that time.

At the end of the tenancy, both you and the tenant tell the scheme how the deposit should be split. If you agree, funds are released within 10 calendar days. If there is a dispute, the scheme's free ADR service handles adjudication and releases funds according to the adjudicator's binding decision.

Cost: £0. All three schemes offer custodial protection for free. The schemes fund themselves through the interest earned on pooled deposits across thousands of tenancies.

How Insured Protection Works

Under the insured model, you keep the deposit in your own bank account. You pay the scheme an annual fee or per-deposit premium to insure the funds — essentially a guarantee that the money will be available at tenancy end regardless of what happens in your accounts.

If a dispute arises, you must transfer the disputed portion to the scheme when the case is opened. If you fail to do so, the scheme pays the tenant from the insurance pool and pursues you as a debtor.

Cost: approximately £18–£28 per deposit, depending on the scheme, deposit size and any membership discounts.

When Custodial Makes Sense

Custodial is the straightforward choice for most self-managing landlords, particularly those with one or two properties. The advantages:

• Zero cost — no fee to pay, no renewal to remember
• No risk of commingling — the deposit is held separately, so there is no chance of accidentally spending it
• Simpler proof of compliance — the scheme holds the funds, so there is less to evidence in a dispute about whether the deposit was properly protected
• No requirement to transfer funds during a dispute — the scheme already has the money

The trade-off is cash flow. If you have a £1,500 deposit sitting with DPS for three years, that is £1,500 you cannot use. For a single property, this is rarely material. For a portfolio of twenty properties, it adds up.

When Insured Makes Sense

Insured protection suits landlords who want to retain access to deposit funds in their own accounts. The typical profile:

• Portfolio landlords holding aggregate deposits of £20,000 or more, where the interest or investment return on those funds exceeds the insurance premiums
• Landlords with variable cash flow who prefer the flexibility of holding the money
• Letting agents managing deposits for multiple landlords under a single membership

The insured model requires more administrative discipline. You must track annual renewal dates (missing a renewal means the deposit is unprotected). You must be ready to transfer the full disputed amount to the scheme on short notice if a dispute is raised. And you must keep the deposit funds genuinely available — using them for property improvements or other expenses creates a liability.

The Dispute Difference

Both models use the same ADR process — paper-based adjudication, strict evidence windows, binding decisions with no internal appeal. The practical difference is in fund mechanics:

• Custodial: the scheme holds the funds throughout. At dispute resolution, it releases funds according to the adjudicator's decision. No action required from the landlord.
• Insured: when a dispute is raised, the landlord must transfer the disputed amount to the scheme. The evidence and adjudication process then proceeds identically. If the landlord refuses to transfer the funds, the scheme pays the tenant directly and pursues the landlord for recovery.

This makes the insured model slightly riskier for landlords who might struggle to produce the funds quickly — for example, if the deposit was held in a fixed-term savings account or inadvertently spent.

Switching Between Models

Switching scheme providers mid-tenancy creates additional obligations: protect the funds with the new provider and serve fresh Prescribed Information within 30 calendar days. If you are changing between custodial and insured models within the same scheme, confirm the required steps with the scheme.

Unless there is a strong financial reason to switch, most landlords are better off staying with whichever model they chose at the start of the tenancy.

Our Tenancy Deposit Protection guide includes a model comparison worksheet and a decision flowchart based on portfolio size and cash flow needs — along with the step-by-step process for whichever model you choose.

See more England guides →