Hi, tenant here, can I get feedback from LL’s on here please.
Ive seen a few agents advertise zero deposit option and just 1 direct LL, online it’s claiming better protection for LL, ie 12 weeks rent protection instead of the standard 5 weeks, also less upfront cost to tenant, if this is the case why are there so few using this method?
I don’t understand what you have written. Could you clarify please
I’m asking why LL’s aren’t using zero deposit option!
I’m still not sure if I get your question
The law is a maximum five week deposit
Are you asking about bonds instead of a deposit ?
I don’t understand what 12 weeks protection is ?
Not taking a deposit would mean you have no come back if there were damages
1 Like
Because it is a rubbish scheme for landlords
3 Likes
I have just looked this up
If it’s too good to be true it is ….
An experienced landlord once advised me once never to take on schemes
Best advice I ever got !
Anything that is not tangible and runs through a third party is not even worth the paper it’s written on
3 Likes
From previous posts on the subject he general consensus of private landlords is it’s not for them. Estate agents push them as it is another income stream for them. LLs feel that the traditional deposit is a better security because tenants are more likely to look after a property in order to get their deposit back when they leave. It also suggests that if a tenant is able to raise a deposit it is nore likely that they are capable of managing their finances.
Apparently, it isn’t the “no brainer”
the headline suggests.
5 Likes
That’s a good point on the tenant wanting to get deposit back, I didn’t think of that!
1 Like
I think this is a “No deposit scheme” where tenant pays extra to have the scheme, spread over several months. This extra cost to a third party is NOT refundable. The scheme will then argue strongly with landlord over any deductions from "the deposit " even though amount “insured” is greater, as its the schemes money.
As a landlord I do not accept this type of scheme.
2 Likes
um… that’s pretty much the only reason why deposits exist at all.
Simple answer,
If a tenant can’t pay a deposit, they dont get the house.
2 Likes
I agree, I won’t take a tenant if they don’t have the 5 week deposit
1 Like
So the tenant ends up paying more over a term and has no return of money when leaving, sounds a bit dodgy. I will have to consider it, lol.
1 Like
My understanding of zero deposits is that the tenant buys what is effectively an insurance policy with a premium of around £70/£80. The tenant issues a certificate to the landlord to show them that they are protected. The premium would be paid by the tenant annually and is non refundable.
2 Likes
But on the other side is the tenant who pays a deposit that’s not protected as in many cases like mine where LL keeps the money although house is perfect at end of tenancy.
I think this is the idea!
Yeah it would cost tenant quite a lot more as each term passes, cheaper option at first I guess.
With a decent LL yes, but my LL didn’t protect mine and I’ve been here since last Feb, they’re using a false address and refuse to give me their details or my deposit.
If the tenant carries on paying the premium each year
Hi Steven34,
If you have a standard AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) the LL is obliged to protect it in one of the recognised schemes (e.g. TDS, DPS, MyDeposits)
Check if your landlord has to protect your deposit - Citizens Advice.