Landlord/Tenant Deposit Scheme

whambamboo

lynzpower wrote:

Although while I truly believe many of the LLs who post here are honest and trustworthy, come along we all know that this is the biggest scandal going.

through abolutely no fault of my own over the years Ive lost a good couple of grand in the wear & tear stakes through ignorance. Now Id take them to court, before I didnt really undersand.

Everyone I know has lost some proprtion of the deposit.

I like the scheme I think its a good idea, although like any tendered service its all about the execution. I expect capita too, and fr a company that run a pi55 up in a brewery ( husing benefit processing?) I am concerned that tihs will be the difference between it being a great idea and a poor idea.

Landlords definitely do take the p1ss, charging tenants to modernise their properties and redecorate etc.

THis is wrong.

The landlords are arguing that they will have to put up the rents, but this is just acknowledging that they are unjustly stealing deposits at the moment. It's ultimately a zero sum game: if rents go up, it will only be to cover the money the landlords can no longer steal from the tenant at the end of the contract.

It won't help me, because I sue and write letters telling the ll where to go, and already get my deposit back, but it will benefit the majority of tenants who don't have the confidence or knowledge to do this.

clutton_2

""" i.e. if you haven't placed the deposit in one of the approved schemes, then you still have the chance to do so before a court hearing.""

there is nothing wrong in this - the new deposit scheme will have 2 different options - one is that landlords pay deposits into the fund administrators on signging an AST, the other option is for landlords to join the "insurance-backed" scheme and only pay the deposit into the administrators funds when there is a dispute, and return all other deposits they hold directlly to the tenants when tenancies end in a normal and amicable fashion.

lynzpower

whambamboo

Could not agree more. the more legally & financially savvy amohng us will go through the arduous process, that Eager learner has found themselves in.

What about those less educated
what about those who simply dont have the money to start proceedings in the small claims court
what of those who speak english as a second language ( economic migrants are probably right up there with "most easy to exploit" by those bad LLS)

Ive been exploited by landlords- im about to total up how much I lost over the years, and its not just the money. One of my LLs failed to give me the money back at all- meaning I couldnt move into my new place and was effectively homeless.

Total lost over the years - £2010

sooz

since most deposits are paid to me in cash, or bank transfer on the day of contract signing [tenants usually prefer to give cash, to avoid the bank charges - and yes, they do get a receipt], i always tell my tenants that i am happy to return their deposit in cash, on the day that they move out, after i've checked the inventory [usually i have a couple of hours to do this whilst they are moving stuff, or send them off to the pub]. i've rented so many times myself that i know the deposit is needed back asap to cover all the money just laid out for the next place - espescially given london rents and the fact i want 6 weeks, not 4.

i don't see why i should have to pay for an insurance policy to keep doing this. i plan to send the tenant's deposit off to capita, and let them argue with them about getting a cheque back within 10 days [that'll be goverment working days, so around 2 months].

'any interest earned in the scheme may be returned to the tenant' :rotfl: ......and not swallowed up by the huge admin costs?

amboy

We all know people who have been truly shafted by LL who keep deposits with the hope that tenants wont do anything, however these LL tarnish the more respectable ones who actually have no interest in keeping deposits, I allow my tenants 3 inspections in the final month so they have the maximum chance of leaving things right.

The dodgy LL I know are already moving away from the officialdom of deposit taking and the housing act by filling their houses with migrant workers and actually making more money. I know at least 3 who have filled their 4 bedroom houses with polish workers, sleeping upto 3 a room andf getting cash.

My point is that whatever law is brought in the decent law abiding people will abide and take the consequence, however the rogue ones will try and find a way round the system.

I personally have to deal with 10 tenant changeover at the same time of year and am dreading the prospect of the extra beaurocracy at the end of tenancies so much so that I am seriously considering not bothering with deposits, after all I have not had a deposit dispute for over 5 years now.

ascollen

lynzpower wrote:

Everyone I know has lost some proprtion of the deposit.

See I just can't understand that - is the market really so different in London?

I was a tenant for 10 years in Leeds before I bought my own house and I must have lived in 8-10 different places with a differnet landlord each time. I've never had anything retained. I thank God that it's never happened to me, but am I so unusual?

stphnstevey

I have been a tenant and a landlord.

Tenants don't understand that often the Landlord is in no better financial shape than they are. They are just trying to make a living also.

I'm worried about two things:
a) Unscroupulous tanants looking for LL that don't use the scheme (maybe because they are simply unaware of it). They can then sit back, not pay rent, while the landlord has to arrange for the deposit to be put in the scheme, pay a fine of three times the deposit to the tenant and still have to wait two to three months for them to leave. This equates to over half a years lost rent - which would break the average landlord.

This tenant then walks away with 3x the deposit and their deposit back!

b) The amount of evidence you would need as a LL to prove damage has been done. Cleaning for example. There is only so much a picture can show and unless they go to the property, which they won't, this can be hard to see.

ascollen

stphnstevey wrote:

I have been a tenant and a landlord.

Tenants don't understand that often the Landlord is in no better financial shape than they are. They are just trying to make a living also.

I'm worried about two things:
a) Unscroupulous tanants looking for LL that don't use the scheme (maybe because they are simply unaware of it). They can then sit back, not pay rent, while the landlord has to arrange for the deposit to be put in the scheme, pay a fine of three times the deposit to the tenant and still have to wait two to three months for them to leave. This equates to over half a years lost rent - which would break the average landlord.

This tenant then walks away with 3x the deposit and their deposit back!

b) The amount of evidence you would need as a LL to prove damage has been done. Cleaning for example. There is only so much a picture can show and unless they go to the property, which they won't, this can be hard to see.

Totally with you on that one stphnstevey. That's the exact position we're in as p/t landords.
That scenario would put us out of business...

And don't talk to me about the flamin' HMO regs....

lynzpower

ascollen wrote:

See I just can't understand that - is the market really so different in London?

I was a tenant for 10 years in Leeds before I bought my own house and I must have lived in 8-10 different places with a differnet landlord each time. I've never had anything retained. I thank God that it's never happened to me, but am I so unusual?

Id say so yes, you are unusual. I havnet only rented in london, Ive also rented in newcastle too, as a student.

the classic excuses include:

they wrote my contract wrong so when I left, I left a month early, despite them telling me verbally ( having refused to give me a copy of the AST :rolleyes:) thus they kept my deposit. LOSS 560 - london

One ridiculous LL ( who i refer to as the witch) charged me £75 for a new NET curtain as she claimed it was dirty , and tried to charge the full 2400 ( from 3 of us) for a number of things including a) a dirty doormat b) a blown lightbulb c) a dead potted plant d) some leaking guttering on the roof . only when court was threatened did she cough up with getting the money back to us, almost 2 months later. She also COUGH tried to get us to pay her airfair to the UK as the washing machine broke ( needed a new bearing) but rather than get us to call someone out to fix & invoice, she wanted to come & see, and wanted us to pay 300 quid for her sodding airfare.

the rest was just general wear & tear issues, and of course getting in those "contract cleaners" at 300 for the morning, when they were simply never needed.

But there you are.

lynzpower

Tenants don't understand that often the Landlord is in no better financial shape than they are. They are just trying to make a living also.

Sorry, why is this the tenants problem?

As a tenant I expect the property to be fit for living in, as a landlord they offer that service at a price that they and I would be willing to accept. If they are struggling for money then a) they need to charge more rent ( and risk those voids) b) do something more lucrative with their time.