Skip to main content

Tenancy Money

Volume 409: debated on Friday 18 July 2003

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place copies of the submissions to his consultation paper, "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" in the Library. [126758]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 16 July 2003, Official Report, column 1362.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those persons and organisations who responded to the consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection", broken down by (a) landlords, (b) tenants and (c) others. [126759]


  • John Allen
  • Forebury Estates Ltd.
  • M. Gora
  • George Wilder & Yvonne Hawkins
  • M. P. Davis
  • Jan Kamburoff
  • BR & J. Green Letting
  • Rigby Properties
  • Blaxhill Estates
  • Kath & Nick Heirons
  • R. F. Maycock
  • G. Foers
  • Exeter Property
  • M. G. Beech
  • John Pybus
  • Malcolm Pither
  • Paul & Heather Wiles
  • Mrs. P. E. Cook
  • + 8 anonymous


  • 3 anonymous


  • Flintshire County Council
  • Ashton Wingate Ltd.
  • Edward Taub & Co.
  • Training for Professionals
  • Forebury Estates Limited
  • Thomas Winter Insurance
  • The UK Association of Letting Agents Ltd.
  • The Rent Service
  • R. W. Goldie
  • Jack Tennison
  • Independent Housing Ombudsman Ltd.
  • Robert Jordan & Associates
  • Cleeve Residential Lettings
  • City of Bradford MDC
  • Wirral Council
  • Aabee Homes
  • Bradford & Bingley Letting Agents
  • Brighton & Hove Private Sector Housing Forum
  • Gedling Borough Council
  • Kensington & Chelsea Housing Advice Service
  • University of Sheffield Union of Students
  • LB Greenwich
  • Lacors
  • Dermot McKibbon
  • LB Hammersmith & Fulham
  • Southern Private Landlords Association
  • Sefton MBC
  • Housing Advice Service Kensington & Chelsea (HASKC)
  • Exeter Housing Group
  • Legal Action Group
  • National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  • Association of Residential Letting Agents
  • Hanover Park Services plc t/a HomeLet
  • Brighton & Hove Private Sector Housing Forum
  • Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group
  • Cardiff Bond Board
  • Housing Needs & Strategy Unit, Burnley Borough Council
  • Streetwise Property Rentals (Scotland)
  • Association of Letting & Management Agents (ALMA)
  • Department of Housing Services, Nottingham City Council
  • The Law Society
  • Braintree District Council
  • Bury & Walkers acting for Leeds Property Association
  • British Property Federation
  • Association of Tenancy Relations Officers
  • The Country Land and Business Association
  • The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
  • Housing Law Practitioners Association
  • Local Government Association
  • National Union of Students
  • The National Rent Deposit Forum (NRDF)
  • Homelessness Strategy for Ipswich Borough Council
  • Chartered Institute of Housing
  • Dorset Residential Landlords Association
  • National Federation of Residential Landlords
  • Birmingham City Council
  • The National Association of Estate Agents
  • Shelter
  • Countrywide Residential Lettings
  • National Approved Letting Scheme
  • Office of Fair Trading
  • Celtic Properties
  • The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
  • North Staffordshire Landlords Association Limited
  • Roger Barton
  • The Letting Centre
  • + 1 anonymous, 1 who asked to remain confidential

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 2WS, on what basis he calculated that the cost of a national tenancy deposit scheme would be £19 million per annum and the benefits equal to £20 million. [126812]

The calculations for both these figures are to be found in Annex 1 of the consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection". They start from a figure derived from the Survey of English Housing (SEH), that there are 127,000 tenancies ending each year in which there is a dispute about the deposit. The total cost is found from multiplying this figure by the average cost of each adjudication in the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), £150. The benefit is found from multiplying the derived figure on deposit disputes by the average level of deposit (£510, SEH data) and by the average proportion of the total deposit an independent adjudicator would consider should be returned to the tenant (31 per cent. taken from data on disputes in the TDS).

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of (a) the maximum annual adjudication costs and (b) the likely annual adjudication costs of a statutory rent deposit protection scheme. [127050]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) mentioned in his statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 2WS, it is estimated that adjudication costs of a statutory scheme would be £19 million. This is a best estimate based on survey findings of tenancy numbers and level of deposit, statistics on perceived prevalence of wrongful withholding of deposit moneys, and the adjudication cost per dispute in the pilot scheme.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the amount of interest that would be generated by holding all rent deposit money in a single custodial scheme. [127051]

The consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" provides an assessment in paragraph 35 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1. It noted that if £790 million (the amount estimated to be currently held in deposits) was held in a single custodial deposit scheme for a year, it would raise £31.6 million in interest (calculated at the Bank of England's then current base-rate).

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses were received to the consultation on "Tenancy money: probity and protection"; how many responses were received from (a) individual landlords and agents and their representative bodies and (b) individual tenants and their representative bodies; of those respondents who were not individual landlords, agents and tenants or their representative bodies, what percentage of respondents were (i) in favour and (ii) not in favour of a statutory custodial scheme to protect tenants' deposits. [127052]

Ninety-eight responses were received. Of these, 26 were from landlords and nine from landlord organisations; eight from letting agents and five from agent organisations; three from tenants and four from tenant organisations/representatives; 13 from local authorities; 24 from other organisations (of which 16 were public or voluntary sector); two from other interested individuals; and four from respondents whose type was not known.Of the 43 respondents not in categories involved in letting or their representatives, 30 responded to the options concerning whether there should be Government intervention; and if so, of the three options which each included a statutory custodial scheme, which option they favoured. Two favoured no intervention; four favoured or appeared to favour a statutory scheme, but with no further details; favoured a custodial scheme as the sole option; two favoured a custodial scheme plus approved insured alternatives; five favoured a custodial scheme plus membership of an approved trade association or accreditation scheme that would provide insurance. There were four further options involving deposits (that did not involved a statutory custodial scheme), which respondents could indicate either instead of or in addition to the ones mentioned here.