“We are missing out on £80m each year”: Why landlords should pay interest on tenants’ deposits

Renters are richer than they think. Image: Getty.

One of the consequences of The Rent Being Too Damn High is that private tenants have barely anything left over at the end of the month to put aside for a rainy day – let alone a home they can own. Last year’s English Housing Survey uncovered the astonishing finding that two thirds of the private renter population have no savings or investments.

Even if you’re fortunate enough to be able to save, the rewards for doing so are pretty meagre. To get a rate as generous as 2.5 per cent, you need to lock your money away for effectively as long as you’re a renter, with Barclays’ Help to Buy ISA (with an extra bonus from the government if you actually buy a house).

But even for most of the 66 per cent without savings, there’s another pot of money that’s held on the same basis but attracts zero interest whatsoever: the tenancy deposit.

Tenants hand over this sum, usually worth between four and six weeks’ rent, at the start of the tenancy to pay for any damage they cause or unpaid rent when they move out. The cash is either held by the landlord or letting agent and insured through a protection scheme, which arbitrates any disputes, for as little as £9.50; or it’s lodged with the scheme itself (known as custodial).

More than £4bn of tenants’ money is protected across the various schemes. Because you have to put down a deposit on a new tenancy before you get your old one back, it means the funds are incredibly stable, and should therefore attract a reasonable interest rate, even after deducting the costs of running the schemes. Yet few tenants see any return: Generation Rent estimates that we are missing out on £80m each year.

When we asked renters if they got interest when their last tenancy ended, just 2 per cent said yes. The government has already recognised this unfairness and asked custodial schemes to start distributing it. They have not – though, to be fair, the government has retained restrictions on how they can invest the money.

The custodial scheme is free for agents and landlords to use. Yet information we obtained through Freedom of Information revealed that most deposits are insured, and the average value of an insured deposit is £1,240: £373 higher than the average of £867 held in custodial schemes. This can only mean that it is somehow lucrative for agents to pay that small insurance premium, in order to hang on to large amounts of cash.


Our survey found that only 2 per cent of tenants whose deposits are insured are entitled by their tenancy agreement to receive interest. In comparison, one in four agents allocate that interest to themselves. Most tenancy agreements appear not to cover this.

Whatever actually happens to tenants’ deposits, the system is set up to give agents access to an incredibly cheap loan, with no benefit to their creditor. If they go bust, indeed, their creditor gets less than no benefit.

This has prompted some firms to set up deposit-free schemes, where the tenant hands over an insurance premium and can keep the rest of the deposit. But with most tenants getting their deposit back in full, they would be losing money by using such a scheme – and tenants with claims against them continue to be liable for damage and rent arrears.

These schemes are simply creating another poverty premium, taking advantage of those tenants with no savings. We don’t need a deposit system that makes money out of tenants: tenants need to make money out of the system.

That’s why Generation Rent is proposing to scrap the insurance schemes completely and reconfigure the custodial schemes so that the tenant, not the landlord, opens the account. When the tenant pays their final month’s rent, an equivalent portion of the deposit would be made available to put down on their next home (the landlord could still make a claim on the remainder once the tenant moves out). If adopted in the forthcoming Tenants’ Fees Bill, this policy could treble the short-term savings that the letting fees ban would create on its own, reducing the need to borrow or raid savings when moving home.

Personal tenant accounts would also make it much easier to distribute interest. And because less cash physically changes hands, less is needed to distribute between tenancies: £57m, we reckon. That leaves the vast bulk of tenants’ money that could be invested. If £4bn went into building community-led housing schemes, we think 35,000 homes could be built over five years.

That would not only give tenants a decent return on their own money, but it would play a role in bringing down rents, making it easier to save properly – or, to generally have nice things.

Dan Wilson Craw is interim director of Generation Rent.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.