RLA approve of Tory Life Time Deposits plan

RLA approve of Tory Life Time Deposits plan

10:02 AM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago 16

Text Size

The RLA has welcomed Conservative plans to introduce lifetime deposits for tenants.

David Smith, Policy Director for the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), said: “We have long argued that deposits should be transferable. It will make renting cheaper and easier for tenants. It is vital though that the detail of the plans ensure that both landlords and tenants can have complete confidence in how the lifetime deposit will work.

“On the pledge by the Conservatives to end so called ‘no fault’ repossessions, we agree that the system needs to be reformed, but this needs to be done properly.

“Whilst any new system should protect tenants from the minority of landlords who abuse the current rights, it is important that good landlords can be confident that in circumstances such as tenant rent arrears or anti-social behaviour they can swiftly and easily regain possession of their property. We want to see comprehensive reform that works for both landlords and tenants. This should include setting up a dedicated housing court offering easy and inexpensive access to justice for both tenants and landlords.”

Share This Article


The Forever Tenant

10:56 AM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

How would this work if deductions are to be made from the deposit? Something that is often not known until the tenant has moved into their new property.

Ian Narbeth

11:18 AM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

I am puzzled by the RLA's position. I wrote about the problems of passporting deposits at some length here.

I cannot see a way round the problem that the first landlord requires the whole deposit to be available to meet a claim and the new landlord requires that the whole deposit will be available to him and not that, after the tenant has moved in, he discovers that some or all of the deposit has been used to pay the first landlord.

Absent an insurance-based solution, which means tenants spending money which is not repaid, the problem appears intractable.

Whiteskifreak Surrey

11:23 AM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

What about if there is a difference in the amount of deposit required, eg the new deposit is lower than the old one. Who is handling that? What about the Deposit Protection Schemes and dealing with them? That takes time. Even if the deposit is repaid in full it takes time to receive confirmations about the final bills paid by the tenants - not their fault, it is just as it is with suppliers of fuel, water, internet etc... I do not understand the RLA position either.

Dr Rosalind Beck

12:31 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

It may end up being declared 'unworkable' as was McDonnell's RTB in the PRS - but just be being used here as a soundbite.

Far more worrying is the scrapping of Section 21s. Just as Ian has thoroughly rebuffed the idea that deposits can be transferred, I believe I have thoroughly rebuffed the 'logic' behind scrapping Section 21s. The world seems to have gone mad though where logical argument is ignored and politicians storm ahead with nonsensical plans which will make things worse for everyone.


christine walker

14:38 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

This appears to just be a money grab by the government.It will not work in reality for landlords. What will happen if you need to claim some of the deposit for damage ETC?


15:43 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

Just a thought...if the deposit schemes were nationalised their profits could be used to guarantee the interim gap between leaving one property and residing at another. If any govt still follows Norman Tebbits mantra of 'on your bike' to find work they would appreciate the mobility of labour is a key element that benefits the country but destroys society.

Too many years watching politics.... my bike has been rusty for decades.


21:02 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

Rosalind and Ian have written such comprehensive arguments - why are the people that matter not reading or comprehending them?

Whiteskifreak Surrey

21:06 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Cathie Hawkins at 21/11/2019 - 21:02
Because they are ideologically brainwashed by Shelter and Generation Rent. And obsessed with getting votes from Tenants.

Simon Williams

21:16 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

I am increasingly giving up on deposits and this sounds like another reason to do so. For a few years now, I've not been taking any from HMO and flat/house share tenants. Tend to find it makes little difference to their propensity to mistreat the place. Sure, they don't clean much when they leave but the new tenant is willing to do that when they occupy the room as they see it as a small price to pay for avoiding a deposit.
As with all of these crazy changes, the only real antidote is to be ultra ultra choosy with tenants and only invest in those properties which are in high demand, thus allowing such choosiness.

Dylan Morris

22:05 PM, 21st November 2019, About 4 years ago

Of course it doesn’t make sense and it’s completely unworkable. But that’s not the point. The majority of the voting public are muppets and this is a great piece of propaganda to help win an election. So it’s actually a fantastic idea !!

1 2

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now