Lettings chain Martin & Co has again added its voice to a call for a single tenant deposit scheme – a custodial one.
Ian Wilson, managing director of the 170-branch franchise business, first made the call in April 2009. Today, it is repeated by the firm.
In Wilson's original call, he hit out at the Government’s failure to go further in legislation covering the security of tenants’ deposits. He said then that there is “huge opportunity for abuse”.
The firm at around that time had to strip some of its own franchisees of their licences after deposits were misappropriated, but it has since cracked down hard on compliance.
The firm has spoken out again after a LAT ‘think piece’. See the link at the end.
But what Wilson said two and a half years ago has changed little as far as his firm is concerned
He said then that many landlords and agencies were still holding deposit monies themselves and not complying with the regulations.
He said both the custodial and insurance-backed schemes permitted by the Government had major flaws in that they allow the landlord or agent to handle the money directly – allowing them to misappropriate it.
He said: “The tenant may not know of their loss until they try to recoup their deposit at the end of the tenancy. Many tenants still remain unaware of the landlord’s obligation to provide written confirmation of the scheme being used.”
He added: “Be it deliberate negligence or unwitting ignorance, landlords or their agents who do not lodge deposits properly and adhere to the rules are not only jeopardising tenants’ money, but they are also exposing the landlord to harsh penalties which can devastate their return on investment.
“This remains most unsatisfactory, as there is still a huge opportunity for abuse.
“The obvious solution is to clarify the rules and streamline them into one, well-publicised process via a single scheme – and ideally one where the tenant can lodge their monies directly into a custodial account without any monies passing through the hands of the landlord or letting agent.
“In this way, there would be no missing money, no confusion as to how the scheme operates, no mystery about where the money will be held, no threat of an agent or landlord going under and taking the deposit with him, no more court action for non-protection of monies, no hassle of late deposits, and no shady third party bank accounts.
“Indeed, the Government’s original statement that tenants could sleep well at night knowing that their deposit monies are safe would then be accurate.”
Two and a half years on, Martin & Co stands by all it said then.
For more on this, see today’s blog by Martin & Co’s Sue Hopson, the firm’s brand standards director who is in charge of compliance.
http://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Is-there-an-argument-for-making-all-agents-use-custodial-schemes
%20(002).png)
.jpg)
Comments
great article, it's very useful for me, lets check it
Northwood Letting Agents Cardiff
23 Whitchurch Road, Cardiff CF14 3JN, United Kingdom
+44 29 2030 1141
or 4: a landlord who has lost money because your franchisee ran off with rents and deposits?
You would not care though, so long as you get your franchise fee, landlords and tenants are unimportant to the M&Co shambles.
Your response says everything that the market needs to know about your company.
Did you know, Martin and company is an anagram of....
'Damp tyrannic moan.'
Hey - Ian - soon there will be another release of stories on LAT and your embarrassing article will be hidden away in the archives. "Phew!!" I hear your franchisees cry! And yes - I am one.
Ian - you could do lots for the benefit of the industry. Martin & Co carries some influence and really could make a difference - I passionately believed that... once.
Odd that Belvoir! and Northwood have worked together on SAFE yet you have to be bloody minded as always.
@ The Only Joke is You aka Martin & Co - the worst attempt at an alias I have ever seen!!
Maybe you are right - nevertheless I agree with the @what a joke. Ian Wilson hasn't got an original thought in his head - which is a shame - wasted space.
He loves to sit and snipe (eg: Safe Agent - but 30 of his franchisees join anyway!!)) - then he calls for what was an extremely thought provoking article by LAT as if he is the noble saviour of the industry.
Why does he want custodial scheme - well it was well documented......
Ian - you would do better to stick to your own issues - and no - I am not a wannabe franchisee, a failed franchisee - I am a competitor but it was a year before I realised you actually had a local branch such is the enormity of their presence and even then - it was only because a landlord sought advise on how to deal with a problem that I discovered that!!
Seriously mate - don't draw attention to yourself. It really is embarrassing.
@what a joke.....
You have to fall into one of 3 categories:-
1) You're either an ex martin & Co franchisee having been booted out.
2) A wannabe martin & co franchisee who wasn't allowed in
or,
3) An existing franchisee who isn't being allowed to renew because you're not good enough.
There is a fourth possibility,of course - you're a franchisee of a rival brand who just wants to take an anonymous pop.
Ian Wilson and his cronies are something else. Wilson is useless, ineffective with the vision of someone who has clearly yet to vist Specsavers!
Richard Martin must be equally as useless allowing this joker to run his business.
M&Co franchisees keep on running off with customers money because the systems and controls in M& Co are non existent.
I am a fan deposit protection.
My daughter rented through agents in Cardiff
who tried to rip her off. Luckily my knowledge of TDS ensured she got her deposit back.
I would say we probably have greater difficulty persuading unreasonable landlords that certain items cannot be claimed (eg a new wood floor when the old one was very lightly scratched) than getting tenants to accept a reasonable deduction. I will not rip off tenants.
Having seen how the custodial system operates, there is no way I would like to be forced to use it. It is so inefficient. I have only encountered it when taking over properties from agents using the custodial scheme. Enough to put me off forever.
Apols got my initials confused DPS and TDS etc.
I stand by the other comments though.
@Sue Hopson
With all due respect Sue as a M&Co employee you are hardly impartial and unbiased in your views and comments. Hence the valisant continued defence and support of Ian Wilson's appalling stance when your franchisees were caught with their hands in the till. Yes there aothers and sadly infuture will be - but I don't remember any of them trying to blame the fact they were allowed to hold money they were clearly incapable of so doing with integrity.
If you were tasked with looking into all three then either you got very confused or have made a big typo but DPS does not insist on cmp - it is TDS that does that by only accepting members who are aso members of a regulatory body with cmp provision.
The last point you make is disingenuous and as for the one in your 5th paragraph and muted suggestions to improve things - please? Shall we just pause for a moment and remember that yoiur boss is the only person so far to actually oppose SAFEagent and declare it a waste of time? Just as he declared TDP an inconvenient nuisance - I see you too are using scheme rule changes as the excuse - shame on you.
Even ARLS hasn't gone that far.
Take a bit of good advice here Sue - when in a hole stop digging.
Let’s not miss the point of this debate
Martin & Co have been open about the offices which closed and incidentally were covered by NALS CMP. NALS have also been very happy to make this information public. ARLA had claims against their CMP policy but these companies were not named and shamed – could it be one of your neighbours who made a claim?
Let us not be naive to think that this is an exclusive problem to Martin & Co – the evidence is there to prove otherwise. The bigger the business the bigger the headline but what about the small independents? Who is checking them?
The point of this debate is to find a solution that fits all agents but primarily to find a solution that protects the consumer i.e. the Landlord and the Tenant.
The tenancy deposit legislation is far from perfect and the muted suggestions are trying to move it forward to something which is more workable and more transparent than the current systems.
I personally was tasked to look into all 3 schemes when they launched – let’s remember that information on how the schemes were going to operate was not available until the very last minute – literally days before they were launched. Let’s also remember that the goal posts have changed since the launch also, such as The Dispute Service deciding to only allow members who had CMP via another body to be part of their scheme many months after setting up, My Deposits introducing charges to ‘re-insure’ if a tenancy renewed and also limiting the length of time to lodge a dispute to 3 months after the end of the tenancy. If the schemes have had to change their rules as they go along how could any Agent have envisaged the likely problems. Go back to pre tenancy deposit protection, everyone held their own deposits, not without problems, but it was very much the norm.
Those who are members of either of the ‘insurance’ based schemes can also be ejected from the scheme for non-compliance. So where does this leave the consumer? - Potentially without a deposit.
Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
One assumes that the M&Co franchise agreement makes it compulsory for all franchisees to use only DPS at all times.?
And that if any have deposits elsewhere (other than under their own mattrress) that they have been obliged to transfer them to DPS?
I will refrain from further comment for now until I see other posts on this article other than to agree with
m,manchester
as the gall of Ian Wilson in criticising the Govt for allowing his franchisees to pocket client money was just breathtaking effrontery.
But can I at this stage just ask Ian Wilson at this stage two questions?
First how this problem
“The tenant may not know of their loss until they try to recoup their deposit at the end of the tenancy. Many tenants still remain unaware of the landlord’s obligation to provide written confirmation of the scheme being used.”
would be solved by all agents using DPS instead of the other two schemes when all three require written confirmation to the tenant.
Secondly if so opposed to anything other than just DPS why did Ian Wilson not say anything when the 3 schemes were first mooted after the 2004 Act came in? If he did he was very low key about it.
The issue is until tenants are properly informed of their rights - then rogue landlords and agents will take advantage.
It needs to be properly enforced. At the moment - low fees win over low risk
So Martin & co want a custodial scheme as they can't trust their franchisees?
Leaving the protection to the tenants, as they propose, will just lead to last month absconders and damage well over anything claimable and lead to more than the 97% tenant success rate in arbitration.
There is nothing fair about the Housing Act 2004, it was written by 6th form Labour intern idiots.
Perhaps the landlords should cut the agents out? They do seem to be the weak link...
My deposits is a farce and should go. They protect no one but them selves.
Martin & Co? The bastions of high standards - why did they fall out with NALS? Because NALS wouldnt pay out for funds missing from a Martin & Co franchise - why? Well, that is indeed an interesting question.
Mr Wilson - stones and greenhouses.
Beware agents claiming to use mydeposits - tens of thousands of pounds worth of deposits are still missing as a result of Richard Davies and Ben Pickering (Conservative party activist) (formerly trading as Romeo Bater in London / Wandsworth) keeping and spending tenant deposits. (NB. Company has since been dissolved after a flirtation of reformation as Basil Hawkins with Davie's girlfriend/wife Gemma Pickering, Ben's sister, at the helm) and landlords and tenants are out of pocket, all aided by the poor government endorsed set up that is mydeposits. From a good landlords point of view, it seems ridiculous that millions of pounds of public money is effectively being wasted on trying to combat bad landlords who, at the worst extreme, don't even participate in the DPS anyway. To add insult to injury those landlords taking cash only rents are not even paying tax either!