Avoiding the TDS

[BTLWhizz]

I've been looking at the rather desperate schemes on here to avoid the TDS. I haven't seen a single person who could imagine being a potential tenant who wouldn't avoid a landlord who resorted to tricks to avoid his/her reponsibilities under the scheme.

If such avoidance is a negative selling point for a property, then two things could happen. It might take longer to find a tenant for the property. And with the better class of tenants, in my opinion, being the ones most likely to be scared off, then the achieved rent might be lower.

Just looking at the finding a tenant issue, I'd think that there would be a fairly good chance that such schemes could make it take a month longer to find a tenant. So that any financial gains through having more "CONTROL" over the deposit would be wiped out, and then some, by the longer void.

[Trenners]

Hi BTLWhizz,

I totally agree with all of your comments.

This legislation will be law with the next week - we need to all accept the new laws .... and move on. The insurance based scheme operated by the National Landlords Association still enables the landlord to keep hold of the deposit. Landlord who do not want to use the custodial scheme should simply join the NLA and insure their deposits with them .....

Mark

[Simon Dewsberry]

Hi Guys

Your' not going to believe this - I completely agree with you ( not overly happy about it) - and we have explored some ridiculous ideas but fact is we have no choice but to "obey" !

The exercise has made me have a good look at my operation and some changes will have to be implemented to cover costs; possibly taking more than one months rent may be a good idea, not sure yet as we all still need to remain competitive and present a professional image.

But after all the banter there is really nothing i can see that is going to be ethically acceptable to both me and the tenant. So guess we will throw the towel in on "avoidance of TDS" for now !

I think a few problem areas have been highlighted with various ideas thrown in for dealing with them.

So it seems to be; stay with AST - AT to risky

Possibly as a Private Landlord - introduce a moderate fee to cover extra "work" (agents are already doing it )

Possibly take more than month's rent in advance (although there doesn't seem to be any real benefit to this)

More importantly get a bloody good inventory sorted and signed - (everytime - take photos)

Personally deposits will stay with me, using insurance scheme

and the costs involved will be offset by "Ten arrangement fee"

Lead with best foot forward and make a point of emphasing that obviously as a repectable and honest Landlord; of course bonds are protected.

Did i miss anything ( bet i did !)

Simon

[odecar]

[

Lead with best foot forward and make a point of emphasing that obviously as a repectable and honest Landlord; of course bonds are protected.

Did i miss anything ( bet i did !)

Simon

[Simon Dewsberry]

Hi Odecar

Very fair comment !

Simon

[Matthew]

But with all the cost of loads of work, inventories, months sorting out trying to get the bond back, we're probably better off doing absolutely nothing and having no deposit at all - the fact is all the work involved in the process in time spent and inventories etc probably would cost about £500, but charging 2 months in advance, since usually the tenants which treat the place bad, are usually the ones which also don't pay rent and go missing owing a few months rent.

You may lose £100 for a new carpet which you would have got before, but you have saved £500 in admin time.

Also with these depositis if you do sign up, if a tenant disputes this, can you charge an hourly rate for your time, say £25 per hour, if the landlord is proven correct. Otherwise you are working for free, and who would do that.

I for one am no longer going to hold deposits.

[Simon Dewsberry]

Hi Matthew

What possible incentive has a tenant got to even clean the place - if you hold no security?

You are then left with trying to locate them and take them to court for damage!

Two months in advance is fine until you come to the last month when they tell you that they have already paid - then on the last day,when they leave, you have had your rent paid and no"bond " to cover anything.

On a HMO with 8 people i hold a bond of £2200 -that's a lot of money NOT to be able to put a claim on if neccessary!

Perhaps the iguarantee scheme is going to be the answer after all ??

Simon

[Matthew]

I agree Simon, it could be a problem with no deposit, but how much do the following cost:

Inventory with loads of photgraphic evidence ?

Time spent filling in forms for Deposit scheme

Detailed comparson of the state of the room when left, again loads of photographic evidence.

Filling in loads of forms again to get the money

Chasing it up, as I'm sure it will take months

Then possibly court???

If the above equates to more than £300 then there is no point taking a deposit and better to merely take it on the chin.

What I am thinking of is some sort of incentive (cash gift of £100 maybe), but when I have more time I will start up a few thread with some of the ideas I have been mulling over.

Also with HMOs I can never see how damage to communal areas can claimed for as nobody would own up and would get so complicated and annoy all the good tenants that it is not worth claiming for communal areas.

You're right the iguarantee is a good idea, but I don't personally think tenants will buy into that one as it is time and effort which other landlords/agents don't ask for and hence some tenants will be put off.