By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Cap tenant deposits at three weeks as part of ‘fairer deal’ for renters, say Labour

The tenancy security deposits that tenants leave with landlords or their letting agents should be capped at a maximum of three weeks, and not the six weeks rent proposed as part of the Tenant Fees Bill introduced into Parliament last month.

The cap on security deposits was initially announced in November last year during the chancellor’s Autumn Statement.

Tenancy deposits are being capped because the government believes that they cause a significant affordability problem for tenants. But Labour firmly believes that six weeks is too high, which is why the party is attempting to amend the legislation to cut that cap in half.


Labour claims their plans would save tenants £575 on average compared to the government’s proposal of £1,150, based on a limit of six weeks’ rent.

Melanie Onn, Labour's shadow housing minister, said: “Labour is fighting for a fairer deal for all renters.

“We recognise the private rented sector is the fastest growing area of housing, and it is right that they are not exploited by unfair fees.

“This government has failed renters for the last eight years. Labour will hold them to account to make sure the power between landlords and tenants is rebalanced.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • G romit

    Blatant ploy by Labour to buy votes.

    Labour demonstrating its utter lack of knowledge of the PRS, and not realising that what is bad for Landlords also turns out to be bad for Tenants.

    They like the Tories cannot continue to use Landlords as whipping boys for their failures.

  • icon

    Poorly thought out vote grabbing headline again.

    3 weeks rent wont pay when the tenant doesn't pay the last months rent, so will Labour pick up the shortfall? I very much doubt it.

    Also when are Gov.uk and the so called opposition going to address other industries "unfair admin fees" for insurers and airlines amending details.... work costs money, a concept sadly lacking in the gravy train environment of local and and national government.

  • icon

    Stamp duty causes owner occupiers significant hardship but I don't see any move to limit that!

  • icon

    if we cannot have the security of a deposit then an element will have to be added to the monthly rent to cover short falls and damage, this will be unfair to the many good honest tenants, would be a good idea if labour put their brains into gear before opening their mouths.


    and the so-called conservatives--may is a disaster

  • icon

    deposit should be 2 months rent


    Deposit should be commensurate with the potential damage, perhaps 10% of the value of the property. Now I realise that this will be beyond the means of most tenants so how about an insurance policy paid for by the tenant and in the tenant's name? A decent tenant will quickly establish a good insurance record and bad tenants will not be able to obtain insurance, a self regulating system.

  • icon

    Surely even the labour retards have worked out that such a deposit is less than even one missed rent payment?! As much use as a chocolate teapot.

  • James B

    Campaigning for votes again at landlords expense .. no change there
    We will be at the stage soon where we won’t enter into a tenancy without a suitable guarantor, somebody else needs to take the risks for landlords.
    Hopefully tenants can see these parties are making life extremely difficult for them to get a property


    We've been doing just that (must be a homeowner too) since 2007 when we decided deposits were too much hassle.

  • icon

    I always take 1 months deposit in case tenant trashes property or skips off without paying last months rent. 3 weeks is not enough unless the tenant provides a guarantor that will pay rent if they leave without doing so or pay for property to be reinstated to standard it was when they entered property.

  • Peter Meczes

    Even 1 month deposit is not enough but many tenants can’t afford more. The insurance policy sounds like a great idea and it would be easy to implement at the point of first signing of the tenancy agreement. Most tenants, in my experience, are fine to start with. The problems with rent etc usually start several months later. I have managed to get a reasonable amount of compensation for unpaid rent by using the MCOL process.


    What about someone like myself with 150+ properties in a relatively poor area. I'd be making a claim on said insurance on an almost weekly basis. How long before I'm uninsurable? No drama if you have one or two properties with a tenant turnover once every few years...

  • icon

    Marxism, always with Labour emotions over sound business principles.
    Under this same principle hiring a car worth £20k instead of the £1,200 deposit you'd only pay £300.

  • icon
    • 20 June 2019 12:37 PM

    No LL with any sense would take more than 2 month's rent as a deposit.
    Reason?............................. Premium Tenancy created which NO LL would ever want.
    Now only 5 weeks rent as deposit will be allowed.
    Easy to beat.
    First 6 month AST rent will include the 3 weeks deposit not allowed in addition to 5 weeks.
    Then a new 6 month AST at a lower rent equal to what it would have been without the additional 3 weeks.
    LL advises tenants that the second 6 month AST can be regarded as a periodic and therefore tenants can vacate with a month's notice.
    A goodwill gesture of 3 weeks worth of rent will be paid in addition to the 5 weeks of rent deposit.
    There job done!


    Not possible. If you ever end up in Court, Judge will seem lower rent the true rent from day 1 if it’s a continuation of original tenancy.

  • icon

    Keep it up labour. Another reason why you bunch of useless clowns will never ever get in power again all the time JC DA are in seats of potential power.


    I do so hope that you are right, have you seen the proposals for a 'garden tax' and revaluing houses for extortionate council tax?
    Anyone with property will be annihilated if Labour ever get into power.
    I have a farm with 40 acres and they are proposing to tax the land annually at three quarters of a percent of the value rising to three percent.
    The tax would run into the tens of thousands.
    I would be bankrupted within the four years of their rule if they ever got in, god forbid.

  • icon
    • 20 June 2019 20:39 PM

    That is the point it would be a NEW tenancy
    A LL is perfectly entitled to impose new conditions and rent with a new tenancy.
    No court could ever rule against any LL who reduced rent on a new AST.
    Goodwill gestures may be offered by any business WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
    If courts want to get clever then a LL would arrange for a surrender letter etc to terminate the AST with a new one starting the following day.
    Had Govt been advised correctly they would have known that no LL would ever take more than 2 month's rent as a deposit.
    That is what the Govt should have made the maximum deposit as.

    It is irrelevant if it is the same tenants.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up