x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
icon
Ajay Jagota
4042  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Ajay's Recent Activity

Ajay Jagota

From: Ajay Jagota 08 March 2017 09:35 AM

Ajay Jagota

From: Ajay Jagota 20 June 2016 22:06 PM

Ajay Jagota

From: Ajay Jagota 18 June 2016 12:33 PM

Ajay Jagota
Hello all good to read your comments debating the article. I will endeavour to answer some of the questions raised and attempt to address the general misconceptions surrounding the propostition. - without trying to sound like an advert! Firstly KIS is a letting agency that has been operating in he North East utilising a no deposit approach to all our managed properties for approx 7 years. In that time we have been working with the insurance industry to develop a product that negates the need for a tenant to provide a monatory Deposit whilst still protecting both ourselves and our landlords. Figures from 2015 show there is £3.2Bill in deposit schemes, with £1.1bill in custodial and £2.2bill in the insurance schemes. In the case of the custodial scheme the interest earned from the "tenants deposits" is used to administer the schemes offering a free to use service, however under the insurance scheme the "tenants deposits" interest is used by the holder of that depsoit which for some operators is a six figure sum. My personal view is the current process of taking monetary deposits is now outdated and in need of reform. If we as consumers hire a vehicle we are not required to pay a substantial amount of money to mitigate risk we as a society in many sectors (apart from the PRS) accept the use of an insurance policy to mitigate against risk. Does the fact that a person has an insurance policy when hiring a vehicle mean that they become a reckless driver? In the current schemes the disputes ratio is 3% so 97% of these deposits are simply handed back, the metrics on the Dlighted (deposit replacement insurance) product shows the claim ratio at less than 3%, evidence that taking a monetary deposit has no bearing on the performance of the tenancy. The use of the insurance means any decision made is not subjective it is an objective view e.g. there is damage to the property and there is evidence on the inventories to substantiate a claim. No decision to proportion blame is necessary as is the case with monetary deposits. The claims history is captured to de-risk the market for all stakeholders unlike the current schemes. The policy not only protects against damage but also rent guarantee and legal expenses offering greater protection than the current taking of a deposit. A thought to leave you all with, tenants are consumers, there is an affordability issue in the PRS, we as a sector can choose to ignore it or embrace positive change. Regards Ajay Jagota www.Dligjhted.co.uk

From: Ajay Jagota 18 June 2016 10:43 AM

MovePal MovePal MovePal