Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Neverwhere

Dps Claims Tenants Want Short Tenancies

Recommended Posts

The Deposit Protection Service has sent out the following press release:

News Release

Date: Embargoed until 12.01am on Monday 9 November 2015
Subject: Eight out of ten renters want tenancies of a year or less, 40,000-strong survey by The DPS suggests

Eight out of ten of those renting accommodation want tenancy agreements of one year or less, a large survey by The Deposit Protection Service (The DPS) has suggested.

39,855 tenants whose deposits are protected by The DPS’ responded to the survey, with 80.1% saying that they preferred agreements that lasted no longer than 12 months.

89.83% said that they preferred agreements that lasted up to two years, with 34.60% of the total saying they wanted contracts for six months or less. Julian Foster, Managing Director at The DPS, said: “This comprehensive survey suggests that the idea that tenants crave longer tenancies is a myth.

“Like landlords, many tenants prefer the flexibility provided by shorter tenancy agreements rather than being locked into long commitments over where they live and who they rent from.

“Tenancy agreements are vital ingredients in establishing happy tenancies for both landlords and tenants, and it’s critical that they reflect the needs of both parties.”

Almost seven out of ten (69.88%) said that they preferred a rolling contract of one or two months’ notice at the end of their tenancy rather than a new fixed-term contract, which was preferred by 28.05%.

Tony, 48, from Bolton, told The DPS: “I’m currently working on a short-term contract, so a shorter tenancy works far better for me. The nature of my work means I move around so I don’t want to be trapped somewhere or risk paying large sums for no good reason.”

Mitchell, 25, a chef in Weston-Super-Mare, said: “I prefer short term contracts as they don’t tie you down to one property.”

Mary, a 74-year-old retiree from Wiltshire, said: “I preferred a shorter-term agreement because my husband and I were in between properties. We didn’t want to be tied down and, if we wanted to stay longer, we could always go ‘periodic’ at the end.”

George, 25, in Lancaster, said: “I’m a student so I need flexibility over where I live.”

As part of tenancy agreements landlords and letting agents take a deposit from tenants to guard against loss and damage, and by law they must protect the money through an authorised tenancy deposit protection scheme such as The DPS, the UK’s largest.

The DPS runs the UK’s only custodial scheme: a free service where landlords submit the money for protection during the course of tenancies.

If a tenant does not agree with the landlord’s deductions, The DPS offers an independent, free Alternative Dispute Resolution service, which aims to resolve any disputes quickly and without the need for court action.

The DPS also runs an insured scheme, where landlords retain deposits and pay a fee to insure them.

The DPS aims to repay all deposits within two business days, on receipt of a jointly authenticated repayment instruction.

The DPS is part of the Computershare group, a global financial services company with over 30 years’ financial administration experience.

Ends

For any media enquiries
The Deposit Protection Service
Joe Williams
Public Relations Manager
+44 (0)870 702 0003 x1520
joe.williams@computershare.co.uk

Notes
1. For high resolution images of spokespeople, visit http://cpu.vg/spokespeople

About The DPS
The Deposit Protection Service is the custodial tenancy deposit protection scheme accredited by the Government. It is provided free of charge, and funded entirely by the interest earned from deposits held in the scheme. The DPS was approved by the UK government to run an insured TDP scheme in September 2012 in addition to the approval it has already been granted by the UK government in respect of the custodial scheme. The DPS is run by Computershare Investor Services PLC. Online self-service allows landlords to register and make deposit payments, transfers and repayments 24 hours a day. Help and advice is available through a dedicated call centre during office hours. An impartial Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service, helps to resolve any disputes quickly and without the need for court action.
For more information, visit www.depositprotection.com

About Computershare Limited (CPU)
Computershare (ASX: CPU) is a global market leader in transfer agency and share registration, employee equity plans, proxy solicitation and stakeholder communications. We also specialise in corporate trust, mortgage, bankruptcy, class action and utility administration, and a range of other diversified financial and governance services.
Founded in 1978, Computershare is renowned for its expertise in high integrity data management, high volume transaction processing and reconciliations, payments and stakeholder engagement. Many of the world’s leading organisations use us to streamline and maximise the value of relationships with their investors, employees, creditors and customers. Computershare is represented in all major financial markets and has over 15,000 employees worldwide.
For more information, visit www.computershare.com

I've asked the DPS via Twitter to clarify whether or not they also asked tenants if they would prefer secure tenancies with the opportunity to remain but not the obligation. Somehow I suspect not, given however the DPS is fund it is likely to increase with the churn of tenants.

Edited by Neverwhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're posing a false question.

How many of us know in advance how long we want a place for? Fair enough for students, but the rest of us just want to be able to give notice when our life and/or work circumstances dictate that we move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're posing a false question.

How many of us know in advance how long we want a place for? Fair enough for students, but the rest of us just want to be able to give notice when our life and/or work circumstances dictate that we move on.

Exactly. This is why I've asked them whether they presented the option of secure tenancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor assumption that the required notice period required from a tenant be the same as that for the landlord.

One could almost conclude they framed the question this way to get the answer they want.

That does seem likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting selection of quotes, from:

A student

A short term contractor

A couple between housemoves

A 25 year old chef

Did they ask any families or anyone else? Also, what hotairmail said.

Yes, it seems highly selective. Perhaps because everybody else said something more along the lines of this:

Because the place they are renting is so depressing signing a year of your life to somewhere horid isnt appealing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor assumption that the required notice period required from a tenant be the same as that for the landlord.

One could almost conclude they framed the question this way to get the answer they want.

Exactly. I, as a tenant, would like to only give a months notice but I would appreciate it if my landlord gave me six!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I, as a tenant, would like to only give a months notice but I would appreciate it if my landlord gave me six!

Agreed. My first tenancy was for three years with six monthly one way only break clauses.

You get what you negotiate for. I probably paid a bit over the odds but was worth it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your use of language implies this is unreasonable. I think not. The relationship is asymmetric. The impact of a landlord giving one month's notice on a family is far greater than the impact on a landlord of a family giving one month's notice. Perhaps one month is too short for the landlord too, but you see what I mean.

Absolutely - it wouldn't be beyond imagination to have 2 or even 5 year tenancies, with perhaps a 2-3 month notice period for the tenant. After all, the landlord simply needs to get another tenant in and things carry on as before - hardly too onerous. The impact on a family can potentially be huge - removal of kids from school, costs of moving etc. etc. There is no reason why the notice period needs to be symmetrical, and landlords (and potential landlords) need to treat the service that they are offering much more seriously than many do - there are very few things more important that the provision of shelter.

If the UK had a serious overhaul of its tenancy laws in favour of tenants then renting forever wouldn't be nearly as bad an option as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the UK had a serious overhaul of its tenancy laws in favour of tenants then renting forever wouldn't be nearly as bad an option as it is now.

Just one simple change: abolish Section 21.

  • A landlord letting out his own home already has separate provision to be able to re-claim it.
  • A landlord with a delinquent tenant applies to the court. I'm all in favour of making that process quick and painless for the landlord who can prove to the court the tenant is in (serious) breach of the lease.
  • A landlord needing to sell can sell to another landlord with the tenant's rights unaffected. Or offer first refusal to the tenant.
  • Lenders can re-evaluate their terms of business as they see fit.
Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once it is not totally the LL's fault. Most BTL mortgages specifically disallow any tenancy over 12 months.

If the law changed, lenders would have to take the new situation into consideration when making new loans and reviewing existing ones. They'd have to change this aspect of their terms and conditions, - lenders change their terms and conditions all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one simple change: abolish Section 21.

  • A landlord letting out his own home already has separate provision to be able to re-claim it.
  • A landlord with a delinquent tenant applies to the court. I'm all in favour of making that process quick and painless for the landlord who can prove to the court the tenant is in (serious) breach of the lease.
  • A landlord needing to sell can sell to another landlord with the tenant's rights unaffected. Or offer first refusal to the tenant.
  • Lenders can re-evaluate their terms of business as they see fit.

What would dropping S21 mean in practice? Would it mean that you could not evict a tenant unless that tenant was in serious breach (missed payments etc?). If so then I agree.

My silver bullet solution would be along similar lines - simply prevent landlords from evicting tenants who are not in breach of their tenancy, except for a few very well defined reasons (selling, perhaps moving in). In all cases if an exception is used to evict then the property cannot be rented for some period of time - say 6 months. For this to work there would have to be some sort of rent control. Not the initial rental price - that's for the market to decide - but for increases during the tenancy. This would be required to prevent "evictions" through raising the rent by 1000%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the law changed, lenders would have to take the new situation into consideration when making new loans and reviewing existing ones. They'd have to change this aspect of their terms and conditions, - lenders change their terms and conditions all the time.

I don't disagree - and I guess it would be a popular change. Just needs to happen. Petition anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one simple change: abolish Section 21.

  • A landlord letting out his own home already has separate provision to be able to re-claim it.
  • A landlord with a delinquent tenant applies to the court. I'm all in favour of making that process quick and painless for the landlord who can prove to the court the tenant is in (serious) breach of the lease.
  • A landlord needing to sell can sell to another landlord with the tenant's rights unaffected. Or offer first refusal to the tenant.
  • Lenders can re-evaluate their terms of business as they see fit.

+ 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the whole "renting gives flexibility" line is a complete myth. An owner occupier can decide to put their house on the market at any time, and if they price it to sell they can move within months. A private tenant who just signed an AST with a 1 or 2 year fixed period has basically promised to pay a landlord tens of thousands of pounds with no way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Just one simple change: abolish Section 21.

  • A landlord letting out his own home already has separate provision to be able to re-claim it.
  • A landlord with a delinquent tenant applies to the court. I'm all in favour of making that process quick and painless for the landlord who can prove to the court the tenant is in (serious) breach of the lease.
  • A landlord needing to sell can sell to another landlord with the tenant's rights unaffected. Or offer first refusal to the tenant.
  • Lenders can re-evaluate their terms of business as they see fit.
+1

Abolishing the S21 is a simple and elegant solution to all the woes of the UK housing market. There is no downside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your use of language implies this is unreasonable. I think not. The relationship is asymmetric. The impact of a landlord giving one month's notice on a family is far greater than the impact on a landlord of a family giving one month's notice. Perhaps one month is too short for the landlord too, but you see what I mean.

Sorry hotairmail, you have misunderstood my post. I wasn't trying to imply that this is unreasonable, it is what I truly think is fair! Agree 100% with your assessment about the greater impact on tenants, hence why I said 6. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely - it wouldn't be beyond imagination to have 2 or even 5 year tenancies, with perhaps a 2-3 month notice period for the tenant. After all, the landlord simply needs to get another tenant in and things carry on as before - hardly too onerous. The impact on a family can potentially be huge - removal of kids from school, costs of moving etc. etc. There is no reason why the notice period needs to be symmetrical, and landlords (and potential landlords) need to treat the service that they are offering much more seriously than many do - there are very few things more important that the provision of shelter.

If the UK had a serious overhaul of its tenancy laws in favour of tenants then renting forever wouldn't be nearly as bad an option as it is now.

I strongly suspect the provision of pet food to pets is better regulated than the provision of shelter to humans. Shelter, one of the most basic human needs, seems to have far less protection surrounding it - whether you buy or rent it than food, water, heating or clothing. It seems to be one of the areas of life where you can buy a pig in a poke and have very little redress. Absolutely shocking given the price of housing whether rental or bought. We haven't really moved on much further than feudal times. Even the landlord name reinforces the asymmetric relationship. You'd run a mile from a car rental agency that called itself your transport lord.

For me, it's one of those areas which is ripe for disruption but seemingly operates like an oligopoly. imagine a housing supplier who treated you more like a good hotelier? Clear list of services, terms & conditions and pricing upfront (perhaps supplied on a website). Book for however long you want, but change your mind with no penalty. Guaranteed 24-hour call out if there's a problem. Various avenues to seek redress, even a refund if necessary. Hell, even your bank is on your side if there's a problem. Able to leave reviews without fear of reprisals. Doesn't sound unreasonable - yet it's a world away from where we are, and our expectations are so low that achieving it seems like a fantasy.

Edited by StainlessSteelCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   21 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.