That still leaves the question of whether a tenant who broadly sticks to the terms of the tenancy can effectively stay indefinitely.
One thing I had heard rumours of some months ago is that DLUHC was also looking at reforming the deposit system. I hope this is still the case!Having had a rather bruising deposit deduction case, I think there is room to reform the system in a way which cannot be exploited by problem landlords. Specifically:1. Under the current system, landlords have no incentive not to try their luck with deposits. The worst that can happen is that these will be sturck out at adjudication. However, I can understand that many people (including my former landlord) would see this as risk free - after all, if you don't try, you don't get! If a landlord/agency is persistently pushing for high deposit deductions and having some of these struck out in adjudication, there should be some sort of penalty. After all, surely it is creating extra costs for the deposit administrators to review the cases?2. Many tenants are at a structural disadvanage in that they are reliant on their deposit to complete their move. Moving house/flat is often expensive, and it can be tricky if you have the equivalent of 5 weeks' rent still resting in your old landlord's bank account.In my case, my former landlord claimed 60% of my deposit, and kept the remaining 40% right until the beginning of adjudication (something the agent was insistent was perfectly legal). A tenant with less cash in the bank may have felt they had to concede to the damage claims just to get 40% of their deposit back on time.3. I also wonder if there could be a way to reward responsible tenants. In my case, I had rented a flat for 8 years' beforehand and had 100% of my deposit returned plus a glowing reference... In such a case, maybe the agencies could require a smaller 'downpayment' from me next time around, and then provide the rest via an insurance system? After all, the car insurance system is setup so that drivers pay smaller premiums if they demonstrate a smaller risk. Why not have a similar system for renters?
I have only used S21 a few times,but it's good to know we have it. I don't let to tenants on benefits,but perhaps there will be ways around that. I don't like the idea that a landlord can be forced to take a tenant if it goes against his wishes.I do allow pets and children at my discretion,according to the suitability of the property. However I have rejected applications from those wishing to have a dog or child in the studios. I hope I could still do that.I can't imagine anything will come into force for a year or more,so I'll wait and see. It's hard to see how any of the pressures on private landlords will end up improving the lot of tenants.
Quote from: Luther44 on June 28, 2022, 02:06:22 PMOne thing I had heard rumours of some months ago is that DLUHC was also looking at reforming the deposit system. I hope this is still the case!Having had a rather bruising deposit deduction case, I think there is room to reform the system in a way which cannot be exploited by problem landlords. Specifically:1. Under the current system, landlords have no incentive not to try their luck with deposits. The worst that can happen is that these will be sturck out at adjudication. However, I can understand that many people (including my former landlord) would see this as risk free - after all, if you don't try, you don't get! If a landlord/agency is persistently pushing for high deposit deductions and having some of these struck out in adjudication, there should be some sort of penalty. After all, surely it is creating extra costs for the deposit administrators to review the cases?2. Many tenants are at a structural disadvanage in that they are reliant on their deposit to complete their move. Moving house/flat is often expensive, and it can be tricky if you have the equivalent of 5 weeks' rent still resting in your old landlord's bank account.In my case, my former landlord claimed 60% of my deposit, and kept the remaining 40% right until the beginning of adjudication (something the agent was insistent was perfectly legal). A tenant with less cash in the bank may have felt they had to concede to the damage claims just to get 40% of their deposit back on time.3. I also wonder if there could be a way to reward responsible tenants. In my case, I had rented a flat for 8 years' beforehand and had 100% of my deposit returned plus a glowing reference... In such a case, maybe the agencies could require a smaller 'downpayment' from me next time around, and then provide the rest via an insurance system? After all, the car insurance system is setup so that drivers pay smaller premiums if they demonstrate a smaller risk. Why not have a similar system for renters?On point 1 this works both ways. There is nothing to stop a tenant arguing a case and taking a deposit to adjudication and hoping to get something back.A deposit dispute is more work for the landlord or agent than the tenant.Tenants can be at a disadvantage but then if a tenant owes rent or the damages are above the deposit amount it becomes very difficult for the landlord to get the amount they are owed.
Quote from: Inspector on June 28, 2022, 02:34:35 PMQuote from: Luther44 on June 28, 2022, 02:06:22 PMOne thing I had heard rumours of some months ago is that DLUHC was also looking at reforming the deposit system. I hope this is still the case!Having had a rather bruising deposit deduction case, I think there is room to reform the system in a way which cannot be exploited by problem landlords. Specifically:1. Under the current system, landlords have no incentive not to try their luck with deposits. The worst that can happen is that these will be sturck out at adjudication. However, I can understand that many people (including my former landlord) would see this as risk free - after all, if you don't try, you don't get! If a landlord/agency is persistently pushing for high deposit deductions and having some of these struck out in adjudication, there should be some sort of penalty. After all, surely it is creating extra costs for the deposit administrators to review the cases?2. Many tenants are at a structural disadvanage in that they are reliant on their deposit to complete their move. Moving house/flat is often expensive, and it can be tricky if you have the equivalent of 5 weeks' rent still resting in your old landlord's bank account.In my case, my former landlord claimed 60% of my deposit, and kept the remaining 40% right until the beginning of adjudication (something the agent was insistent was perfectly legal). A tenant with less cash in the bank may have felt they had to concede to the damage claims just to get 40% of their deposit back on time.3. I also wonder if there could be a way to reward responsible tenants. In my case, I had rented a flat for 8 years' beforehand and had 100% of my deposit returned plus a glowing reference... In such a case, maybe the agencies could require a smaller 'downpayment' from me next time around, and then provide the rest via an insurance system? After all, the car insurance system is setup so that drivers pay smaller premiums if they demonstrate a smaller risk. Why not have a similar system for renters?On point 1 this works both ways. There is nothing to stop a tenant arguing a case and taking a deposit to adjudication and hoping to get something back.A deposit dispute is more work for the landlord or agent than the tenant.Tenants can be at a disadvantage but then if a tenant owes rent or the damages are above the deposit amount it becomes very difficult for the landlord to get the amount they are owed.Yes I completely accept the second point. I personally am a London renter, so am used to demonstrating a suitably high salary, six months' rent in cash savings etc in order to secure a property. If I stopped paying rent, my landlord would likely be confident they could get the money out of me sooner or later... However, when I speak to friends or family who let their properties outside of the big cities, though, it seems it is more common to have tenants who are living from month to month.I accept the incentive point might go both ways...BUT there is also the fact that most tenants will only go through the process once, where some landlords/agencies have become experts at dealing with it. In my case, the landlord's agent had hired a third-party contractor to compile a 50-page photographed reports at both check-in and check-out, and then attach a cash value to ANY slight changes.By contacting names from Trustpilot reviews (yes, I became a bit obsessed!), I have spoken to others who say this agency did exactly the same thing: essentially mounting excessive claims against the departing tenant with the hope of getting as much as possible...
Landlord Forum
General Category
Landlord Advice & Help Renters Reform Bill
