TDS -

[pugsy]

I seem to have stumbled upon quite a few forums, where tenants seem to think that this TDS thing is the best thing since sliced bread!

[pugsy]

I wasn't quite finished, but swatted a mozzie and there you go... well I am shocked to discover quite a few websites and forums where it looks like the belligerent tenants who lurk amongst us seem to be trying to educate themselves as to how they can make our lives more difficult than they are and somehow claim this 3 x deposit (bandied about like a prize) for themselves. They also seem to think that they are untouchable, that they can do whatever they want and they will get their money back regardless. Worse for professional & fair landlords than the implementation of this scheme, but now the perception of it by tenants... worrying...

So for crying out loud protect your deposits, because some crafty tenants will expose you if you do not.. and of course it's for your benefit too...uh huh.

[Simon Dewsberry]

Yep Pugsy, i lie in bed every night thanking my lucky stars TDS is in place ..isn't it wonderful......!!!!but for whom?

The only good thing I can see from a LL POV is that hopefully it will set a precedent for the next law .....

Tenants to be penalised 3x rent when they are 14 days late ..................(dream on ....!!!!!LOL)

Simon

[J4L]

"dream on ...."

Yup Simon THIS is never gonna happen and it's obvious why!

Because rogue LL's have made the situation, for the good LL's, like yourself, impossible.

Unfortunately as long as there are houses to rent there are going to be rogue LL's, and this dream of protecting the LL will never surface.

So many TENANTS have had their deposits held by LL's, that now people who let don't expect to get it back, thus the number of T's that sue the LL had decreased. Trust me, this scheme, WASN'T set up up for anyone more than it was for Tenants, because a high percentage of them were getting tucked up. Had it been the other way around then surely it would have been set up in the LL's favour.

It's not rocket science Simon, c'mon mate.

If they don't pay, then sue them or bring in your DC's (not that I agree with this) but look at the wording about a deposit, it's for the 'property' and it's 'condition' and not the rent. We seem to have lost sight of how we take money off people and what it's actually for.

The ramifications of not paying rent means that a T can be taken to court to evict them.

The ramifications of not treating the property well is they lose their deposit.

That's it!!

Systems are in place and should be adhered to. NOT because it covers ANY particular party but that there has been an obvious problem in the past and it has been seen as enough of a problem by the authorities to address it. They are attempting to diminish the amount of rogue LL's, and this Law/scheme will go some way to achieve this.

Stop fighting it and fall into line if you are a good LL and don't worry yourself about it!!!

[Simon Dewsberry]

Not fighting anything... TDS in place ...all systems to run it in place (personally!).....no issue ..just extra work but clearly peace of mind for T (and LL knowing he is complying) NO issues with it

BUT

I read some where that approx 17% of T had some part of their bond witheld ( god knows who worked that out !! arla i think ..i will try to find it ...)So a problem requiring a solution ....not the best solution, IMO, but none the less i accept it "as is".....

now what % T TUCK UP LL for "some" rent ........Clearly it happens, so should we not have a proposed solution to try to counteract this problem .....yes, sure we've got DC's and eviction .....but it would be:

1 Fairer

2 Easier

3 Quicker

4 Balanced

5 Less evictions

For the T to work under a similar regime as the LL to act as a detterent/incentive to pay rent on time.

I see no problem with this, RENT is a completely different issue to the deposit but it is a good model to use to update the housing act ....to cater for the non rent payer ....I do not let to T on the basis they might pay me !!

but currently the system is extremely cumbersome and unfair to all concerned .....time for admin to issue notices, waiting for Ct, lack of comms once notice issued, and pretty much certain that LL will lose at least 2-3 months rent whilst waiting to evict (probably on top of 2 months already passed for S8 to be served)...

DOES NO ONE AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT IDEAL ?????

Clever T are aware of this and use it very much to their advantage .....these guys are in the minority as are rogue LL so Why not 3x rent as a penalty ..with att to earnings ..if not paid within 28 days .....bet most of the rent defaulters would do EXACTLY as all us LL have and COMPLY IMMEDIATELY ....the courts will then be freed up a bit, to sort out the next wave of chaos..... TDS deposits !!!!!!ha haa LOL

Anyone got any other suggestions on what could be done to possibly improve the current system? ( other then use a dc or 3x)

I thank my lucky stars that i have never actually evicted a T and hopefully never will.....but would sleep better knowing that something other than this as my only real course of action is available........ should i need to use it ....

Simon

[pugsy]

What concerns me is that red tape is weighted against us for sure. Where is the balance, to protect us? I think we are forgetting that we are providing a very expensive asset for use by someone for a £500/£1000 deposit... yay us. Days Rental charge me £250 security deposit if I hire an old van for the day! On that point alone, shouldn't the law be at least balanced? Having been through an eviction and have the judge looking at me like i was the devil incarnate but sympathise with my tenants lies and pleads of poverty.... just by virtue of the tenant/landlord tags...

Just watch out guys, because we live in an information age and tenants are educating themselves as to how to exploit landlord/tenant law for personal gain. I know that's nothing new, but the www makes it much easier now and the perception of the TDS does not help.

Where have I read about a scheme whereby you can insure your tenancy (not rent guarantee) and not take a deposit but if there are dilapidations or arrears at the end of the tenancy you make a claim on the insurance... something like that. Does anyone know?

[GPEL]

TDS was brought in to being quite simply because of a CAB initiative, not rogue landlords, who made a compelling case for this legislation. Unfortunately, what wasn't considered was that those going to CAB are often those on a low income, often in precarious positions, often unable to understand or manage their own outgoings and those who just want to try it on. So there is more likelihood of a complaint. Consequently, CAB got and still gets a biased and disproportionate view of what's happening in the real world. CAB's only clients are ones that have found themselves in difficulty therefore, as far as CAB is concerned, 100% of their clients have an (un)justified complaint. However, in the wider arena, the number and nature of problems from dodgy landlords is relatively low but CAB gave a slewed view to the legislators. Yes, rogue landlords need stamping out but TDS is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The scales are now unfairly tipped against landlords and does need some balance but who's to do that? It all seems very quiet from the Landlord Associations' leaders. There's plenty of protection for tenants; not so much for landlords IMHO. Notwithstanding this, TDS can also be a useful tool for landlords to reduce the problems associated from difficult tenants unreasonably challenging damage deductions.