x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

AIIC welcomes new deposit scheme that must include inventory reports

The Association of Independent Inventory Clerks (The AIIC) has unsurprisingly welcomed the launch of a new deposit protection service that requires all tenancy agreements to include a mandatory check in and check out inventory report.

Ome, a new deposit alternative brand launched by Hamilton Fraser, includes its own adjudication service HF Resolution, which already provides services to many of the existing deposit alternatives.

Ome, which aims to address a number of market changes, includng the introduction of the tenant fee ban and mandatory client money protection, is designed to provide landlords with the exact same financial protections that they would receive with a traditional deposit scheme, according to Hamilton Fraser. 

Danny Zane, chair of The AIIC and MD for My Property Inventories, commented: “It has long been on the cards in today’s private rented sector for deposit schemes to require solid inventory reporting in order to protect all parties within a tenancy as well as provide forensic evidence of how a property was handed over and then subsequently returned in a fair and impartial manner”.

“There has been a lot of talk regarding mandatory inventory reporting on the way and we look forward to this for all concerned parties. 

“It can be considered somewhat troubling that no current protection scheme has been able to state that [inventory] reports must be compiled via a third party supplier but we acknowledge that deposit scheme membership comes from letting agents and so this creates a conundrum of sorts with letting agents sometimes wishing to make money with reporting or landlords perhaps looking to save money in the short term.

“As well as this compiling biased reports can take control of deposit returns and or tenancy situations, of which we are seeing more and more evidence of”.

Zane added: “We have been talking to one deposit scheme that acknowledges that reporting should be left to a third party, but I feel we are some way off this being stated until the Ministry of Housing act on requiring reporting to be mandatory via a fair and independent third party”.

“Hamilton Fraser are an amazing market disrupter with this launch and we are all very excited about Ome.

“This is an independent service with its own adjudication service that will require evidence based reporting at both the start and end of a tenancy agreement. This feels like the start of the future in the private rented sector”.

  • icon

    Surely I can't be the only landlord to not bother with inventories, putting losses down to simply a cost of doing business ?

  • icon

    I agree David, I always assume a full refurbishment after a tenant has been in the property for 5 years or more, 1-5 full redecorating

    icon

    Absolutely, so do I.

     
  • icon

    No David you are not the only one, I am the other one who don't take deposits anymore or do Inventories which I had always don't for 30 years until the they made Deposits a liability for LL's in July 2007. There is no stopping them in particular this last 13 years, more & more anti-landlord regulations all paid for by LL's to destroy himself. Now we have RLA agreeing with many parts of the Political Parties Manifestos to the determent of LL's, like lifetime Deposits it's a non starter for me, just give us back the traditional Deposits that we used to have & never mind your transferring nonsense. They all forget it's our property they are talking about not theirs, yet all those lame duck origination's set themselves up above us want to make all the rules & laws about how everything should be while they have no input only bullsugar all making a living off our backs.
    Then they want to tell us to have open ended Tenancies, hello are you feeling ok this is sitting tenants again like 1960's its not on, then Council wants us to have their permission to be able to sell vacant possession, although they say it's ok if you want it for a Family member or live there yourself. I say none of their business whether we want to sell not sell or keep its not their property, when we bought we didn't need their advice or get any of their funding so why then should we require their permission to sell. I know the Section 21 was abused by Tenants to get Council to house them, many acted up in different ways to achieve this but you blame the LL for all, it would be interesting to see the figures on how many Tenants turned up in Court to oppose the eviction ? not many they are not stupid they are hardly going to challenge something they want. It's Government Policy is wrong why should have a legal responsibility its a right nanny State tell them to take responsibility for themselves.
    The other thing dedicated Courts backed by RLA which is misguided, we want nothing to do with Courts we had enough of that with S.21 where by LL couldn't end a Tenancy without going to Court but Tenant could walk away at anytime, just like the new proposals tenants can stay or go anytime but LL can be stuck with them for lifetime if tenant chooses, what ever happened to the scales of justice it well lopsided. Dedicated Courts probably a kin to 1st / upper Tribunals, I seen first hand how that works but probably not allowed to say so I wont. Although I might be allowed to say this procedure was the cheap inexpensive way to resolve problems / £500.00 under section 12 but when lawyers get at it you might find yourself dealing with section 13 and unlimited costs.

    icon

    Excellent post, please send this to Corbyn and Boris Johnson.
    Sums up the situation that we all face as landlords at the moment, with a lot more regulation and penalising legislation to come no doubt!!!

     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up