New Landlord Deposit Rules

Guy_Montag

thesaint wrote: »

I would say that you were unlucky. I believe that the figures state that 1 in 5 feel that they've had there deposit witheld unfairly.

My best wishes to Mrs Generali.

I've looked at the thread in question twice, it will probably get closed.
No further comment from my goodself.

I must have been unlucky too. I have lived in five rental properties in the last 10 years, in one I left my deposit in lieu of the last months rent, since I did not believe I would see it again. In the other four, I have had to threaten legal action to reclaim my deposit. Let me make this quite clear, none of the landlords were making a claim against my deposit, they were simply being obstructive & hoping I would give up.

Croak_2

Croak wrote: »

Looks like it only applies to ASTs. And AFAIK ASTs are not compulsory, they are the default, so it appears a custom tenancy contract could be used, thus avoiding this extra work & cost.

But something tells me it aint that simple...


Croak

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151895

"If you start renting a property now, the rent is less than £25,000 per year and you do not live in the same house as the landlord, the tenancy will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy (unless your landlord agrees otherwise in writing)."

seems to confirm what I thought was the case.


Croak

thesaint

Croak wrote: »

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151895

"If you start renting a property now, the rent is less than £25,000 per year and you do not live in the same house as the landlord, the tenancy will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy (unless your landlord agrees otherwise in writing)."

seems to confirm what I thought was the case.


Croak

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.

Another question that i've had answered that no one on here could tell me is with regards to the interest on the deposit

The interest accrued by deposits in the scheme will be used to pay for the running of the scheme and any surplus will used to offer interest to the tenant, or landlord if the tenant isn’t entitled to it.

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:

Generali

Croak wrote: »

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151895

"If you start renting a property now, the rent is less than £25,000 per year and you do not live in the same house as the landlord, the tenancy will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy (unless your landlord agrees otherwise in writing)."

seems to confirm what I thought was the case.


Croak

Is it going to be worth all that cost and effort to avoid paying a few tens of pounds? Don't forget, you'll also be reducing the demand for your property. I wouldn't rent from someone that wasn't using the scheme so that's 1 person at least.

peter999

Croak wrote: »

Please tell me youre kidding. Deposits of hundreds of pounds for a property worth 100-200k, where tenants can and do do 1000s of pounds worth of damage, and sometimes much more. And the law is on the side of the tenant to the point where it aids and abets their criminal activity - not occasionally but routinely.

This new law only takes this wrong even further.

Did anyone in govt have the brain cell to ask why there was a perception gap on the issue of deposits? It is becuse tenants are so frequently irresponsible, and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. When the cost of their actions is deducted they fail to accept that, even when it seems quite obvious.

Once again labour shows the preference for superficial appearance and vote winning over basic justice and sound law.

Get a grip, I think you're being a little overdramatic.

As my post said, Tenant's Deposits have been routinely abused & misused by Landlords.

The balance is being redressed in regulating this sector.
Also as deposits will be registered, the tax man can take more of an interest in landlord's business dealings.

You're expecting to make money out of renting property, the tenants should expect their deposits to be secure.

Property renting had become like the Wild West.

peter999

thesaint

peter999 wrote: »

Get a grip, I think you're being a little overdramatic.

As my post said, Tenant's Deposits have been routinely abused & misused by Landlords.

The balance is being redressed in regulating this sector.
Also as deposits will be registered, the tax man can take more of an interest landlord's business dealings.

You're expecting to make money out of renting property, the tenants should expect their deposits to be secure.

Property renting had become like the Wild West.

peter999

Oh the irony.

Generali

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Lots of people there that I reckon think that this law is a good idea

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

1.

Lots of people there that I reckon think that this law is a good idea

I was thinking of doing that too, but couldn't be arsed. Nice job!

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I was thinking of doing that too, but couldn't be arsed. Nice job!

Cheers. Frankly, I started regreting it when I got to #3.

Croak_2

Generali wrote: »

Is it going to be worth all that cost and effort to avoid paying a few tens of pounds? Don't forget, you'll also be reducing the demand for your property. I wouldn't rent from someone that wasn't using the scheme so that's 1 person at least.

It costs me nothing to continue using my non-AST contracts. It will ensure that tenants that do damage do pay for it, something I have no faith in happening under the new scheme.

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.


Croak