Landlord bashing…is the deposit sufficient?

I have never taken a deposit as all of my tenants were long term and I do a complete refresh of the property after they have left. -- did take a tenant to court once and she complained I had not refunded her deposit, didn't go well for her when I produced the signed piece of paper saying she hadn't paid one.

Have I misunderstood your question or are you unaware of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which limits the deposit to five weeks rent?

The Tenant Fees Act limits the deposit to a maximum 5 weeks
The bare walls idea won't be acceptable under the new standards which will require standards for doors, bathrooms, kitchen similar to social housing.
The obvious choices are to charge a higher rent and hope the tenant stays long enough to cover the damage, or sell up - which Gove seems to intend but would never say.

It may be prudent to reasses your deposit policy, as under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 its is illegal for a landlord to demand/hold more than 1 month + 1 weeks rent for a deposit.
The wisest course of action would be to carry out regular inspections of the property, many do this annually, some carry them out every six month, I wouldnt recommend more frequent inspections (unless it's a HMO situation) as it could be in contradiction to your tenants "right to peaceful enjoyment" of the property.

The reality is the government want property letting to be the realm of institutional Investors only. You can't take a higher deposit that's banned, you can restrict it to people you can use .I e. working UK nationals only but can't instruct an agent to screen out other tenants. So either way it's difficult and worthwhile looking for alternative investment short let's maybe?

Reply to the comment left by David Houghton at 19/05/2023 - 15:04
Everyone talks about these institutional investors sucking up the properties that landlords sell, who are they ? .. They would need to provide 2million+ homes to rent and They wouldnt be buying ex-lanlord properties they would if they had any sense be building new purpose built homes at EPC B/A rating , and they certainly wouldn't be catering for the social tenants on LHA rents in any great numbers.

I think a regulated insurance based approach is the way ahead, where both tenant and landlord build up a history that helps determine the level of premium, and possibly where serious cases of damage caused by a tenant can lead to further action by the insurer who has the clout and resources to pursue the tenant or at least ensure their ability to rent (or get a mortgage) are affected somehow. Conversely landlords who don't play fair also find it difficult to get insurance. Deposits are reduced and premiums possibly part of the rent. Of course this needs even more regulatory change And careful thought but the current proposals fall short of reform that actually benefits good landlords and good tenants who both suffer from the bad players.

5 weeks does not cover anything if they have left the house in a state. Let's say the cost of repair is £3000 and the tenant deposit is £1000, you are at a loss of £2000. This does not cover any rent arrears.or court case either. I think all tenants, whether working or lot, should pay for all the damages. Apart from deposits, tenants should also have guarantors that would pay if the damages exceeds the deposit.

Reply to the comment left by Mary Afolabi at 22/05/2023 - 17:07
I agree with you, but in reality you are living with the fairys if you think you would get your money back