Tenant Deposit Schemes - What are alternatives?

Guy_Montag

wecanhelpu wrote: »

There is only one reason this has been brought in - to enable the government to build a database of landlords and their properties in order to gather taxes.

Isn't that a good thing?

olly300

Guy_Montag wrote: »

But it'll make it a bit harder to be a dodgy landlord & that, surely, is a good thing.

Nah. It just makes it harder to be a thieving landlord.

Lots of landlords are ok with repairs etc but when it comes to giving back deposits they decide it's their money.

There as lots who don't do repairs, allow the property to fall apart round your ears etc will just now not take deposits.

Victim_of_Countrywide

Wow it is frustrating reading this thread. Like many other threads on this subject it shows that neither LL or tenant is happy with the new schemes.

I am guessing that the margins for letting out houses/flats are getting tighter and tighter as rents maybe aren't rising in line with mortgage interest rates. This pressure will lead to all sorts of stress and arguments.

I don't mean to be horribly unsympathetic to landlords but as someone who is trapped in renting without being able to get on the property ladder - I am wishing for LLs to pull out and hopefully increase the supply of houses for the rest of us.

Ignoring my bias, I still cannot see any more who these Tenancy Deposit schemes are helping. Neither LL or tenant is getting benefit and both feel they are getting ripped off.

My own story has only led me to believe that these Tenancy Deposit Schemes are to help LA's who now have the power to take more money from both sides. With directors on boards of both the LA/EA and the Deposit Schemes they have an easy way to line their pockets further.

Generali

Victim_of_Countrywide wrote: »

Wow it is frustrating reading this thread. Like many other threads on this subject it shows that neither LL or tenant is happy with the new schemes.

I am guessing that the margins for letting out houses/flats are getting tighter and tighter as rents maybe aren't rising in line with mortgage interest rates. This pressure will lead to all sorts of stress and arguments.

I don't mean to be horribly unsympathetic to landlords but as someone who is trapped in renting without being able to get on the property ladder - I am wishing for LLs to pull out and hopefully increase the supply of houses for the rest of us.

Ignoring my bias, I still cannot see any more who these Tenancy Deposit schemes are helping. Neither LL or tenant is getting benefit and both feel they are getting ripped off.

My own story has only led me to believe that these Tenancy Deposit Schemes are to help LA's who now have the power to take more money from both sides. With directors on boards of both the LA/EA and the Deposit Schemes they have an easy way to line their pockets further.

Where are the tenants that are unhappy with these deposit schemes? Anyone I know that's rented from a few LLs has been ripped off for deposits.

infocom

as rents maybe aren't rising in line with mortgage interest rates

Thats what I am finding. If you go into BTL now, with the minimum deposit (so starting off in BTL) then you'll find you cant make any money in the short term due to high mortages/house prices and because rents have not risen (probably due to so many with low mortgages and no need to incerase rent).

But those who've been in the BTL for years and have loads of equity in all their houses wont find it so hard because their mortgages will still be low. I suspect those are the ones who dont care about even more costs. For those who's rent just about covers the mortgages its getting more and more difficult. I have thought about packing it in, but as I said earlier, I just want something extra for a pension. Feel like I am being penalised for trying.

Victim_of_Countrywide

Ah Generali - I will explain my story. I rented through an LA. Some deposit was withheld at end of tenancy. LA gave vague reason that was not true. I took dispute to The Dispute Service Ltd. They found in favour of LA/LL. The Managing Director of LA is also Director of the The Dispute Service Ltd. This conflict of interest will lead to many tenants being ripped off still. Caught between LLs and LAs - tenant's are still as vulnerable as ever.

infocom

Where are the tenants that are unhappy with these deposit schemes? Anyone I know that's rented from a few LLs has been ripped off for deposits

My tenants are happy for me not to register as they dont get anything out of it and would prefer I look after their money as they trust me over government/businesses who are just out to make a profit. Some of my tenants specifically told me one reason they moved in is because they wanted to deal with a nice landlord and not a letting agent who will have no interest on the property whatsoever and only want to make money.

Generali

Victim_of_Countrywide wrote: »

Ah Generali - I will explain my story. I rented through an LA. Some deposit was withheld at end of tenancy. LA gave vague reason that was not true. I took dispute to The Dispute Service Ltd. They found in favour of LA/LL. The Managing Director of LA is also Director of the The Dispute Service Ltd. This conflict of interest will lead to many tenants being ripped off still. Caught between LLs and LAs - tenant's are still as vulnerable as ever.

Is that the same as the Tenancy Deposit Scheme? How did you manage to use it already, it's only been going since April? Is this some sort of arbitration scheme instead?

Gorgeous_George

I was sceptical at first and I considered following the professional advice that it was not worth collecting a deposit. However, I decided that having a deposit was better than not, so I took £450 and deposited it in the TDS. I shall ignore any minor damage at the end of the tenancy so I expect it will be all or nothing.

When my last tenant left I was able to return his deposit 3 weeks before he moved out. With the TDS my current tenant will have to wait until they have everything in order.

I predict that all the whinging about rubbish LLs will be replaced with whinging about rubbish tenancy deposit schemes. It is my guess that, under the old rules, more money was returned that needn't have been than was withheld unreasonably. Under the new rules LLs should have more evidence and some may be more likely to use the scheme to recover some of the deposit.

All in all, it's made little difference to me but has taken away some of the risk of a dissatisfied outgoing tenant holding a grudge against me (and possibly my car).

I'm sure there are many other ways that the Government could gather information about LLs. Comparing the Land Registry database against the council tax database would be one. I welcome anything that ensures taxes are correctly collected.



GG

thelawnet

infocom wrote: »

The point is I dont need or want their service. Why should I pay for something I dont need or want and am forced into using. It makes no sense for me to do this as its free money for other people.

I don't understand what you are saying in the slightest. The scheme is free, you seem upset about the interest, but:

It is not your money.

It is the tenant's money.

You claim to be a wonderful lovely landlord and that your tenants do not need the protection of a fair statutory scheme.

Yet you are treating their deposit as your money to earn interest on.

This suggest to me that perhaps you are not the caring sharing landlord you claim, as you are treating someone else's money as if it is your own, and it really goes to prove that the scheme is sensible.

The purpose of the money is that if when the tenant moves out they have damaged your property damages can be taken for the breach from the bond. This is the right of set-off: you owe the tenant the amount of his deposit and he owes you cost of the damages: you set-off your debt against his.

In any case this would only occur at the *end* of the contract - you do not occasion any loss until you actually repair the damages.

I can't say that I have any sympathy with your desire to profit with the interest from your tenant's money (which would be a small amount in any case).

Nor do I understand this idea that you say you are a nice guy and tenants have no problems. As far as any outsider is concerned, you are equally as honest as your tenant - i.e. it's impossible to tell. So if you don't want to put your tenant's money in the statutory scheme, surely he can say "*I* am nice honest man, why should I have to pay a deposit". I really am not understanding your attitude, which seems hugely inequitable - YOU want to be protected against dodgy tenants, but you don't want them to be protected against dodgy landlords.

If you were a tenant moaning about the lost interest, I could perhaps understand, it is after all the tenant's money, however, they are not complaining because they never got any interest before either! So you are no longer unfairly profting from other people's cash, the tenants are protected, and everyone is happy. I don't see the problem here.....