New Landlord - Deposit Protection Schemes

tunnel

BobQ wrote: »

GM has offered many people good advice on here. You may be glad of it in the future

I'll second that, it was only through one of GM's post I was made aware of issuing the PI for deposits on new tenancies and periodics, something my letting agents didn't know about(they do now)

nearlyretired2004

To BobQ ....


The 'reduction' we are making is only in passing on the cost savings we are making by not letting through a letting agency - I did say it was 'a little' below market rate..


I am very aware of the rules around deprivation of assets, and am confident we are doing nothing to contravene them - but thanks for a helpful comment !!


Regarding the second paragraph of your post at 5:47 I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe I understand all the pitfalls...... dare I say it, that's why I came on here asking for advice in the first place!!!

Sandstone

OP, I personally think you are right to feel more comfortable about having 'control' over the deposit, and I think it's wrong for people to judge you with cynicism for it.
It's possible to distrust something because of unfamiliarity, and not because one has any nefarious intentions. For example, what if one of the schemes collapsed? Whether because of fraud/theft/negligence etc.? These schemes haven't been around forever, and probably won't be either.

One good reason for preferring to have custodial 'control' might be the government guarantee over personal deposits up to £85K - does any equivalent system exist for the schemes?
I don't know the answer, but when faced with a known and an unknown, there's nothing wrong with expressing a preference for the known, followed by asking for more info, which is what you've done.

As for answering your question, I only have experience with https://www.depositprotection.com and it seemed ok.

I say just pick whichever one you like. Good luck and best wishes for your family in difficult times.

CreditCrunchie

marliepanda wrote: »

[/B]

Its not your money, so you having control of it shouldn't be an issue.

And on that note, any money you do make should be the tenants. Its their money, not yours.

Exactly this!

Deposits should always be protected by completely independent third parties, who make no money from it and can act impartially. The money belongs to the TENANTS, so they are the ones needing protection from schemes going bust.

jjlandlord

It seems that many have not grasped what a tenancy deposit is for.
It is a security, so while the money remains the tenant's, the whole point is that the landlord can have control over it.

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

Deposits should always be protected by completely independent third parties, who make no money from it.

These do not exist. Deposit schemes are not charities and they all make money from it.

If anyone needs protection from a custodial scheme going bust it is the landlord as he is the one liable to the tenant.
That said in principle, the money should be save even if the scheme were to go bust indeed.