I have heard a rumour that the proposed tenancy deposit scheme (being brought in pursuant to the Housing Act 2004) may not be introduced in October 2006 as has been widely anticipated, but may be delayed until next year, probably next April. This may not be true of course, but many landlords will feel very relieved if there is a delay, beset as they are with the new HMO and other new regulations which came into force recently.
I do hope though that when the new scheme does come into force it will be light on paperwork. I can remember when the pilot scheme was being run by the Independent Housing Ombudsman, how all landlords I spoke to were horrifed by the massive (in their opinion) amount of paperwork involved - and remember that many landlords judge a tenancy agreement not by its contents but but by how short it is! In fact I suspect that the paperwork was a major contributing factor to the low takeup of the pilot scheme.
I was speaking to one of my landlord clients only the other day and she was saying how concerned they are about the new scheme and whether it will be worth their while to take a damage deposit at all, when they were going to have to deal with (she told me) so much extra administration. I suspect that many landlords will either assume that the scheme operators will be anti landlord or be put off by the paperwork, and will stop taking a deposit at all and just increase the rent overall to compensate them for losses which would normally be covered by a damage deposit.
It will be unfortunate if this happens, as an increased rent is not refundable to the tenant at the end of the term in the same way that a deposit is, so good and bad tenants are punished alike. And although technically a tenant can challenge the rent in the first six weeks by referring it to the Rent Assessment Panel, in practice very few tenants do this. It is possible therefore that a scheme brought in to benefit tenants may just result in higher rents. I hope not but we shall see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health informationA physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 pat...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has voted unanimously to introduce amendments designed to strengthen the regulatory framework govern...
-
USA: Restoring American Financial Stability - discussion draft published by Senate Banking CommitteeThe United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs has published a discussion draft titled Restoring American Financ...
-
In case you were wondering, you really shouldn't expect that anything you post on your MySpace page will be kept private. If you are in ...
-
According to an article in USA Today, Facebook is following in the footsteps of Google and others by using targeted ads. I'm not at all ...
-
I was interviewed some time ago for a Globe & Mail article on workplace surveillance, which appeared yesterday. The piece discusses keys...
-
Like many people I suspect, I was concerned to read the recent BBC report about glass ceilings which, the report said, means that "to...
-
Earlier this year, in Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 261 , the Court of Appeal declined to follow the position, adopted in Re Guidezone [2...
-
In Gregson v HAE Trustees Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1006 (Ch) a so-called "dog-leg" claim was brought against the directors of a ...
Comments
Post a comment on: Musings on the tenancy deposit scheme