New Landlord Deposit Rules

Croak_2

thesaint wrote: »

All those who thought that they automatically were going to be better off. Sorry.
I am happy that if I choose to, I can charge an admin fee and receive any interest due, as my AST's state that no interest is due to the tenant.

I love New labour.:beer:

You get less interest than before, as its basic rate -3.2% (IIRC).

The onus will be on you to
a) prove the damage to a 3rd party, which is not always easy, and takes time for which you wont be paid
b) be subject to a governing body most likely on the tenant's side, happy to second their excuses & lies and presuming LLs to be Rackmans.

If you love labour, I'm a frog.


Croak

Generali

Croak wrote: »

Reduced demand and reduced value? All my tenants want their deposit back the day they move, not 10 days later. I think that will outstrip the added value of a deposit guarantee. Anyway, I only need a small percentage of the market, I dont own the town.

I'd rather get my deposit back in less than 10 days. My experience is you're unlikely to get most (or any) of it back at all. I'd rather have my deposit back in 10 days than not get it in 2 (if you see what I mean).

Croak_2

thesaint wrote: »

When is an AST not an AST? I give it two weeks (If it's not been found already) before a simple subtraction of a term deems it not to be an AST.

Exploring the outer fringes for sake of interest...

AIUI the difference between tenancy and license depends on the content of the contract, not on which it is called. But nevertheless a tenancy contract called a license still is a license until the authorities deem it to be a tenancy. And as long as its a license, it aint an AST.

And AIUI, the deposit scheme only applies to deposits placed while it was an AST.

Its not watertight, as a licence converted to an AST will be converted going back to day 1, making it an AST, but to do so takes court action, which costs the tenant.

There are also options that are neither tenancy nor license, but those are areas for specialists in property law.


More significant to most of us is what specifically makes a contract an AST?


Croak

Generali

Just had a look at the Housing Act 1988. It looks to me like you can either be on an Assured Tenancy or an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

Trying to cut through the legalese, it looks to me like if you want to get around the new law you could set up your tenant as an Assured Tenant. However, it's very hard to evict an Assured Tenant and they can take you to the Residential Property Tribunal Service to get their rent fixed at a 'market level'.

Setting up your tenants with an Assured Tenancy may get you round having to protect their deposit but it'll create a whole load of further problems for you.

thesaint

In some of my replies, I am simply being flippant with my responses.:D
I think that the rate is BOE minus 2.3ish%

I know that the interest rate is lower than previously, but I was responding to my own question about "What if the AST the tenant signed states that no interest is payable"? I have learned from the link you posted that I am still able to receive 100% of all interest applied to the tenants deposit.

One or two are under the impression that they will automatically receive interest on their deposits.

Contrary to popular belief, most landlords receive minimal interest.

To date, I have only had to make one deduction for damage, it was not argued by the tenant. I have let a lot of things go because in general my tenants stay 2-3 years, and I want them to recommend me, so swallowing minor damages/breakages works better.

If anything, the new legislation would persuade me to make deductions that I would've previously overlooked. Deductions have now been given government backing (With legitimate proof). If I 'lose' I wouldn't be losing anything.

Rackmans and 'King of Belgravia'. I wish.

I like the principal of the protection, I just think that it is poorly thought out.

I keep hearing comparisons with Australia, and how it works there, but what is not mentioned is that in Australia there is a 'Bad tenant' list, and it takes considerably less time to get them out.

To all, becareful what you wish for.;)

Wookster

I've just had a phone call from my estate agent explaining this all to me.

They have also said that an administration fee of £50 to cover the costs of moving my deposit into the scheme will be passed on to me. Obviously I'm not happy about this at all, can they really charge me £50 for this??

Can I as a tenant insist that they agent uses the http://www.depositprotection.com scheme as it is the only free one?

Generali

I'd refuse to pay the £50 and then make them give me 3x the deposit if I was you.

Wookster

I'm definitely coming round to that idea!

its a bit cheeky to ask me to pay for the protection of my money!

clutton_2

is only your money if you pay all your rent and dont do any damage - otherwise its the landlords money - touchy legal point ......

Generali

For existing tenants it'll be hard for an agent to force the tenant to pay for the money to go into the protection scheme.

Conversation in my mind on signing new contract:

Agent: "You need to pay to protect your deposit"
Tenant: "I think not chum"
Agent: "Erm...."

Fast forward 2 weeks:

Tenant: "Did you protect my deposit?"

Scenario 1:

Agent: "Yes and we would really quite like you to pay the £50"
Tenant : "No thanks. Very kind of you to think to ask me though"

Scenario 2:

Agent: "No, we are awaiting the £50"
Tenant: "I claim 3x my deposit. Trebles all round!"
Agent: "I'm going to kick you out of the house"
Tenant: "You can't!"
Agent: "Doh!"

Can anyone see a flaw in this? It's how I understand that it works.