New Let Garage not included

davidmcn

Grumpy_chap said:

Recommend the OP sits down with her daughter, gets a full information of the situation and all the facts with nothing hidden where the daughter has done anything illogical and then the OP can support her daughter (and request advice from here if necessary).

Or even better, the daughter can post here herself. Always seems to be Chinese whispers going on when people's parents etc are posting here with second-hand information.

anselld

https://www.reedsrains.co.uk/landlords/zero-deposits
Presumably it must be (barely) legal.

SpiderLegs

AdrianC said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Scottish_Princess said:

pay a lower deposit which is non refundable rather than a much higher one which would have been given back minus anything the Agents felt had been damaged

A deposit that is not refundable is not a deposit, but a fee.
For a property in England let under AST, this would not be a permissible fee:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/letting_agent_fees_for_tenants

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I'm not sure that's legal in England anymore since the introduction of the Tenant Fees Act which came into effect 1st June 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tenant-fees-act

I wonder whether it's one of these "no deposit" schemes where you're basically buying an insurance policy?

Yes that will be it, suspect the OP doesn’t really understand what has been signed up for.

Reed rains appear to use this scheme

https://www.reedsrains.co.uk/blog/tenant-perspective-zero
https://www.zerodeposit.com/faq/tenants/

What happens at the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement if I cause damage or don’t pay my rent?

If you cause damage or fail to pay your rent when your tenancy ends, you must pay the landlord directly. If you don’t, we will pay them on your behalf and may use a debt collection agency to collect any money owed (you could be liable for these costs). Be aware that fees paid towards the Zero Deposit scheme are non-returnable.

Grumpy_chap

davidmcn said:

Or even better, the daughter can post here herself. Always seems to be Chinese whispers going on when people's parents etc are posting here with second-hand information.

You forget that no-one's daughter (or son) is ever anything but entirely perfect and innocent...
And no parents ever get involved or worry on behalf of their off-spring where it is not wanted...

SpiderLegs said:

Yes that will be it, suspect the OP doesn’t really understand what has been signed up for.

Reed rains appear to use this scheme

https://www.reedsrains.co.uk/blog/tenant-perspective-zero
https://www.zerodeposit.com/faq/tenants/

What happens at the end of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement if I cause damage or don’t pay my rent?

If you cause damage or fail to pay your rent when your tenancy ends, you must pay the landlord directly. If you don’t, we will pay them on your behalf and may use a debt collection agency to collect any money owed (you could be liable for these costs). Be aware that fees paid towards the Zero Deposit scheme are non-returnable.

That looks pretty rubbish from the tenant's points of view.  Effectively an insurance policy that protects the LL and offers nothing to the tenant.  Surely, such a charge (fee) should be met by the LL and, if not, to charge the tenant is seemingly not in the spirit of the new rules on permissible fees even if technically permissible.

AdrianC

Grumpy_chap said:
That looks pretty rubbish from the tenant's points of view.

One mahoosive advantage from the tenant's PoV.

Not having to front a month's rent as a deposit.

Grumpy_chap

AdrianC said:

One mahoosive advantage from the tenant's PoV.

Not having to front a month's rent as a deposit.

I get that, but the tenant is still paying for an insurance policy that benefits the LL only.  At least the month's rent upfront limits the tenant's liability.  As I read the link posted by @SpiderLegs, the tenant's liability is unlimited after paying the insurance policy.

SpiderLegs

Grumpy_chap said:

AdrianC said:

One mahoosive advantage from the tenant's PoV.

Not having to front a month's rent as a deposit.

I get that, but the tenant is still paying for an insurance policy that benefits the LL only.  At least the month's rent upfront limits the tenant's liability.  As I read the link posted by @SpiderLegs, the tenant's liability is unlimited after paying the insurance policy.

What makes you think a tenants liability is limited to the value of the deposit?

Grumpy_chap

SpiderLegs said:

What makes you think a tenants liability is limited to the value of the deposit?

The deposit schemes are rather balanced in how they assess liabilities and the LL's opportunity to pursue a vacated tenant is really rather limited.  If a tenant wrecks the place, the LL is best to just be happy they have gone.  An insurance company will have far more resources behind them to pursue recovery.

SpiderLegs

Grumpy_chap said:

SpiderLegs said:

What makes you think a tenants liability is limited to the value of the deposit?

The deposit schemes are rather balanced in how they assess liabilities and the LL's opportunity to pursue a vacated tenant is really rather limited.  If a tenant wrecks the place, the LL is best to just be happy they have gone.  An insurance company will have far more resources behind them to pursue recovery.

Are you under the impression that a landlord cannot pursue a tenant through the legal system if for example they have caused damaged over and above the value of the deposit?

Grumpy_chap

SpiderLegs said:

Are you under the impression that a landlord cannot pursue a tenant through the legal system if for example they have caused damaged over and above the value of the deposit?

In practical terms it is very difficult.
Deposit protection schemes are quite weighted in favour of the tenant. Once they have made a determination, any further routes to claim are rather suppressed.
The latest changes in letting rules really rather assume there are bad landlords and no such thing as a bad tenant.