The Association of Residential Letting Agents has set out its demands should the governmental go ahead with proposals for lifetime deposits.
In its election manifesto the Conservatives pledged to introduce passports “to make private renting easier and cheaper.”
Now ARLA - which was represented on the government’s Tenancy Deposit Reform Working Group and made formal representations to the government in September suggesting how the current deposit system should be reformed - has commented on the latest proposal.
“If the introduction of a passporting system is to be viable the government must ensure that both the outgoing landlord’s deposit can be used if needed, whilst the incoming landlord has certainty, they will get the full deposit they have agreed with the tenant” it says.
And it continues: “Would this lead to the change in landlord and tenant behaviour? Most likely, however, the government must introduce a measure that reduces the risks landlords and agents face with three things that can help tackle or prevent negative behavioural changes in a passporting system.
“Firstly, a tenant guarantee. Secondly, a requirement to have an inventory. Thirdly, the requirement for a written tenancy agreement.”
And ARLA adds: “In the weeks and months ahead, ARLA Propertymark will be scrutinising the government’s proposals and working with Propertymark members to ensure the reforms are fit for purpose. “
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.png)
%20(002).png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
One thing is for sure it will be a step firmly backwards for landlords
Surprised ARLA haven't suggested a naughty step, they should be fighting against this not coming up with pathetic ideas such as they have. Any landlord or agent can see where this will go wrong. Perhaps ARLA's mates at shelter would like to act as guarantors for tenants?
......In its election manifesto the Conservatives pledged to introduce passports “to make private renting easier and cheaper.”
It will only make it cheaper for those who are committed to spending on reckless purchases. Good tenants will save a deposit for when they next move so I am unable to see how this system will make it a) easier or b) cheaper. Deposits for good tenants get returned so it will make no difference to them. JB states it as a retrograde step and who can or will disagree with him?
Please login to comment