Neverwhere Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 I also have a request in with the DPS for some more information about their survey, so we'll see if anything comes of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I want a daily tenancy, with a £75 fee from the letting agency every time I renew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renting til I die Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I want a daily tenancy, with a £75 fee from the letting agency every time I renew. Haha, that would probably work out cheaper for a lot of areas in London, if the added rent on top was only, let's say a pound! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I want a daily tenancy, with a £75 fee from the letting agency every time I renew. That's called a hotel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renting til I die Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I know, its amazing that some hotels work out cheaper than living in London! ...and don't they do your bedsheets as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well Alan Partridge lived in a travel tavern so maybe its worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I want a daily tenancy, with a £75 fee from the letting agency every time I renew. The less stable private tenants are the better it is for Britain's dynamic labour market. Tenants should have to renegotiate their tenancy agreements on an hourly basis in order to help grow the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 I'm being stonewalled. Unsurprisingly it seems that the main point of directing me to the media team was not to provide answers but to stop awkward questions being asked of @The_DPS on Twitter. Some of you may be able to tell that I've somewhat lost my patience with this. (#^.^#) If anyone else thinks the lack of transparency over this survey given its claim that tenants actively want shorter tenancies - and implication that insecurity of tenure is therefore not a problem for tenants - isn't really good enough from an organisation like the DPS, which as far as I can tell is actively funded by increased tenant churn, then I suggest that asking awkward questions of them on Twitter might be a good idea. Hi, I've been referred to you by @The_DPS I have a few questions about the Deposit Protection Service survey referenced in your recent press release: What were the full list of questions asked in this survey? How were tenants selected to take part in this survey? Were all tenants with currently protected deposits asked to take part? Were only tenants with newly protected deposits asked to take part? Will the full results of this survey be published? If so, when and where? If not, why will they not be published? How is the Deposit Protection Service funded? How does this funding vary by the number of deposits protected? Does it vary by the total number of deposits held in protection? Does it vary by the number of newly protected deposits over a given period? Please note that this correspondance and any information contained therein will be made public in due course. Thank you, @NeverwhereHPC Hi there, We hope to release more information from the survey when we’ve had a chance to process the results. All tenants were given the option of taking part. More information on The DPS can be found here: www.depositprotection.com/about Hope that helps. Thanks, Joe Hi, Please can you either provide the full list of questions asked in this survey or explain why the DPS doesn't want to release this information? Please can you elaborate on what you mean by "All tenants were given the option of taking part" - how were tenants contacted in order to ask them to take part and what prompted this contact i.e. what allowed the DPS to identify people as tenants? Will the full results of this survey be published, or will the "release of more information" be limited to only those results that the DPS sees fit to publish? The link provided doesn't provide any of the requested information about the DPS. Please could you explain: How is the Deposit Protection Service funded? How does this funding vary by the number of deposits protected? Does it vary by the total number of deposits held in protection? Does it vary by the number of newly protected deposits over a given period? Please note that this correspondance and any information contained therein will be made public in due course. Thank you, @NeverwhereHPC Hi there, Once we’ve analysed the results, we’ll be happy to release any conclusions that can be drawn from them. Thanks, Joe Hi, So the DPS will officially not be releasing the full survey results for others to analyse then? Is the DPS also officially refusing to release the full list of questions asked in this survey? Is the DPS officially refusing to give details of how tenants were contacted to take part in this survey? Is the DPS officially refusing to provide information as to how it is funded and how this relates to the numbers of protected deposits processed? Please note that this correspondance and any information contained therein will be made public in due course. Thank you, @NeverwhereHPC Hi, To clarify on the issue of funding: The DPS insured scheme clearly is funded by increased tenant turnover - as fees are only collected each time a new deposit is protected - but the funding of the custodial scheme is not elucidated upon at all and the overall balance of funding is not made clear, hence why I felt that your previous link did not answer the questions raised. I overlooked the possibility that it may have been provided as an answer to a question about overall funding of the DPS because the DPS is primarily reliant on the insured scheme for funding of its entire service. Is this in fact the case? If not then is the DPS officially refusing to provide information as to how it is funded and how this relates to the numbers of protected deposits processed? If so then does the DPS acknowledge that it directly benefits from promoting as much tenant turnover as possible? Please note that this correspondance and any information contained therein will be made public in due course. Thank you, @NeverwhereHPC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Generation Rent got a lot further with the DPS and make some very good points on their blog: Longer tenancies: busting some myths Posted by Dan Wilson Craw 601.60sc on November 20, 2015 Earlier this week we launched a campaign to improve security of tenure for private renters. Achieving this is going to entail hacking through a thicket of special interests. Where it’s not the landlord replacing tenants every six months, it’s letting agents who want their annual renewal fee, or mortgage lenders demanding easy access to the property if the landlord does a runner. Even deposit protection schemes - government-licensed organisations which supposedly exist to protect tenants - are throwing up roadblocks to reform by spreading misinformation. Last week, the Deposit Protection Service (DPS), one of the three schemes, put out a press release claiming that private renters don't want longer tenancies. Luckily it didn't get picked up beyond the property press because it's a load of rubbish. They asked two questions to a self-selecting sample of tenants: To “What is your preferred initial tenancy contract length?”, the answers broke down as follows: 0-6 months - 13789, 34.60% 7-12 months - 18136, 45.50% 13-24 months - 3875, 9.72% 25-36 months - 826, 2.07% More than 36 months - 3229, 8.10% They also asked “In general, do you think at the end of a fixed period it is better to have”: A rolling contract with one month’s/two months’ notice - 27850, 69.88% A new fixed term contract - 11181, 28.05% Other - 824, 2.07% For a start, 20% of private renters are clearly not being catered for by tenancies of 12 months or less - and they're probably the most vulnerable. But this whole line of questioning is a red herring. It's probably true that most renters want flexibility to move out when they want, but the whole point of the long-term tenancies that are being proposed is that tenants get both the knowledge that the landlord can't turf them out with two months' notice, and the flexibility to leave if their circumstances demand it. I bet this wasn't communicated to the respondents, who might reasonably decline an inflexible 3-year tenancy if they've just moved into a new place with a landlord of whom they know nothing. A better question would have been about how easy it should be for landlords to kick their tenants out. Thankfully, Shelter already did that. In 2012, when they were proposing their own Stable Rental Contract, they found that 66% of private renters would like to have the option to stay in their tenancy longer term if they wanted to. A complete contradiction of DPS's claim, and one that actually makes sense. It is, of course, in DPS's interests to promote their fantasy about tenant desires when the company benefits directly from churn in the lettings market. Every time a tenant moves, that's another fee they stand to pocket if they protect the new deposit. When we're trying to create a market that works for the consumer, let's listen to them and be wary of people with an ulterior motive. Instead of worrying about whether a 3- or 5-year tenancy is the best way forward, we just need to start protecting tenants who face a no-fault eviction, and thereby deter landlords from exercising Section 21. This will create longer tenancies by default - and ones that work for families and temporary workers alike. Please support our campaign here. Definitely worth supporting their campaign against no fault evictions, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.