Deposit-Free Renting Schemes Explained (And Why They Suck)

Deposit-Free Renting Schemes

God dayam, boy. “No Deposit” schemes have been blowing up lately, ain’t they?

Also commonly referred to as “zero deposit“, “deposit-free renting” and “deposit replacement” schemes. Pick your poison. I’m going with “No Deposit” from here on out.

Whatever you want to call her, one thing is fo’ sho’, letting agents are pushing the product harder than Pookie – my local, toothless crack dealer – as a viable alternative to the traditional cash security deposit.

Sounds interesting. But I ain’t convinced.

Unless I’ve misunderstood the blueprint, all I’m seeing being touted is a goofy, half-baked insurance policy, disguising itself as a legitimate solution to a problem that I don’t even believe exists.

Alas, this has all the makings of a good ol’ fashioned cash-grab. Prove me wrong!

Whatever my position is, it’s always important to be aware of the options available to us, and just because this rubber johnny isn’t a good fit for me (way too small, obvs), it doesn’t mean it won’t be a proper cute and snug fit for you.

I appreciate that some of you will already be aware of the scheme and some of you will even be using it, but for everyone else, let’s do this!

What is a “No Deposit” Scheme?

  • A No Deposit scheme is an alternative to tenants paying a security deposit.

    When it comes to deposits, landlords can preference one of the following options at the start of a tenancy:

    1. don’t take a security deposit
    2. Take a security deposit (and secure it into a tenancy deposit scheme)
    3. Sign the tenant up to a No Deposit scheme
  • No Deposit schemes are services for tenants to sign up to, not landlords.

    Once a tenant signs up, their landlord is protected with 6 – 12 weeks’™ worth of rent against damages and rent arrears incurred by the tenant. Think of it like an insurance policy paid by the tenant.

    They became particularly popular after security deposits [in England] were capped to an equivalent of 5 weeks’ rent when the Tenant Fees Act 2019 was introduced.

  • The schemes are operated by private companies, they are not Government run or approved. Welcome to cowboy county!
  • There are a handful of No Deposit schemes in the market, and similarly to insurance providers, each vary with their offering (so make sure you read the details of the one you’re potentially opting into if you’re a buyer).

    Most tenants sign up through a letting agent, who will likely work with their preferred supplier/affiliate partner. it’s also possible for self-managing landlords to sign up their tenant directly with a scheme.

  • The sales pitch for opting into a No Deposit Scheme over a traditional security deposit is usually focused around the following areas:

    • Landlords get better protection (6 – 12 weeks’ worth of rent).
    • It lowers the costs for tenants (it’s cheaper to opt into a No Deposit scheme than paying a deposit), and it means they don’t have money tied into a deposit scheme for the duration of the tenancy.
    • Allows tenants to move-in quicker (because they don’t have to save for a deposit).
    • Claims are paid out faster.

How do No Deposit schemes work?

I’ve seen the mechanics of the scheme presented in various forms, some rather misleading, but here’s the gist of it (some of the details may differ depending on provider):

  1. Sign up to a No Deposit scheme
    The tenant pays one week’s worth of rent to sign up to a scheme, and some also apply a one-off setup fee and an annual renewal fee.

    All fees are non-refundable.

    There is no cost to the landlord (if you suddenly feel light-headed and in need of a wet flannel, I understand. This is a rare and unfamiliar novelty).

    Once a tenant has signed up, the landlord is protected by the scheme (basically, the insurance policy is active).

  2. Tenants need to be eligible for the scheme
    Similar to how tenants need to qualify for rent guarantee insurance (RGI), they also need to be found eligible to qualify for a No Deposit Scheme.

    This usually means the tenant or their guarantor needs to pass the usual referencing checks.

  3. At the end of the tenancy
    If there are no damages or unpaid rent, then the No Deposit Guarantee will end and there is no further action required.
  4. Settling claims
    If there is a successful claim, landlords will be paid within a couple of days.

    Note, if claims exceed the amount guaranteed by the scheme (i.e. 6 weeks’ worth of rent), landlords will need to pursue alternative methods if they wish to claim the overspill (i.e. take legal action), similar to when losses exceed the security deposit amount.

  5. Managing disputes
    If there is a dispute over a claim, then your case will be processed by an adjudication panel.
  6. Landlords are protected, NOT tenants
    No Deposit schemes guarantee and protect landlords, not tenants! I think this is the most misunderstood (or perhaps, mis-sold) aspect of No Deposit schemes!

    Landlords are paid out by the scheme for any successful claims, but tenants remain completely responsible for covering any financial losses or damages due to the landlord. No Deposit schemes do not insure tenants, and therefore will NOT cover their costs.

    Essentially, the scheme quickly pays out any successful claims to the landlord so they don’t have to wait around, meanwhile, they will set their bloodhounds loose to recover the incurred costs from the tenant.

Popular No Deposit Schemes

Before I pounce and take a gigantic steaming dump all over No Deposit schemes, I do want to highlight a couple of the more popular schemes available. it’s the least I can do. Like I said, the scheme might be a better fit for you. No judgement from me.

The reality is, whether I’m a fan or not, No Deposit schemes have become a popular and successful option.

(I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the companies below).

No Deposit Schemes
SchemeRatingLandlord ProtectionRegulationSetup feeService feeAnnual renewal fee


TrustPilot Reviews
Landlord Protection

10 weeks’


Setup fee


Service fee

*One week’s rent

*Annual renewal fee




TrustPilot Reviews
Landlord Protection

6 weeks’



Setup fee


Service fee

*One week’s rent

Annual renewal fee




TrustPilot Reviews
Landlord Protection

8 weeks’



Setup fee


Service fee

*One week’s rent

Annual renewal fee


  • *Tenants are subject to the fees, not landlords!
  • *It’s unclear whether the prices displayed are VAT inclusive (which is so bloody annoying), but I suspect the prices are exclusive of VAT!

Please note, I try my best to keep the information of each service up-to-date, but you should read the T&C's from their website for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

On a side note, the accumulation of TrustPilot reviews paints an interesting picture, which allows us to speculate. Predictably, a lot of the positive reviews seem to be left by tenants shortly after they moved into their new home.

So the first point is, the scheme does help tenants secure tenancies. Great. But obviously that only tells half a story – and actually, that’s the least important part from the landlord’s perspective – because it’s only once we’ve done a full circle (i.e. when the tenancy ends) can we truly and fairly judge the service.

The handful of negative comments I did read were mostly left by disgruntled tenants and landlords after their circle was complete. Make of that what you will :)

What’s also interesting (and worthy of a brief chuckle) is that the one company that is unregulated by the FCA offers the most landlord protection, and the one that offers the least protection is the most expensive (6 weeks’ protection is literally only one more week than the deposit cap, so like, what’s the point for landlords?). The one that looks like the objectively best option is the worst rated. What a comically odd bunch of socks.

I genuinely don’t know which one I’d pick if I had to choose.

Creating more problems than real solutions

I’ve gone through a few of the No Deposit websites and I must admit, they do a great job at selling it.

They almost had me convinced. Fuck, there were moments when I wanted to become a tenant just so I could sign up to a scheme and spend less on a deposit and more on the things I love (that’s literally one of the slogans I came across. Amusing!).

The problem is, however, after I crunched the numbers – and rechecked them over and over – I could never end up with a net positive result. In other words, the scheme solves one problem, but seems to create more in the process.

It all sounds fab in principle, but not in practice, especially when you start considering the trade-offs that come with it.

  1. Tenants will end up paying more
    No matter how you slice it, good and bad tenants alike will end up paying more in the long-run by using a no-deposit scheme.

    If tenants don’t cause any damage or rack up any rent arrears, they’ll still be subject to the non-refundable service fees.

    it’s a confusing message, because the strategic marketing spiel gives the impression that tenants will be better financially off using the scheme. But they won’t.

  2. “Better protection” [for landlords]
    So the argument is that No Deposit schemes provide better protection for landlords compared to traditional cash deposits.

    I’ll play ball. So let’s say that’s the case.

    But now why don’t I do one better? I’d be significantly better protected with a regular old cash security deposit and regular old landlord insurance, which provides wider coverage against damage and rent arrears.

    Moreover, tenants can also purchase insurance that will actually cover rent arrears and damage, which will likely cost them less than the fees applied by a No Deposit scheme.

  3. Lovely-jubbly earner for agents
    It came as no surprise to learn that agents have been allegedly hard-selling No Deposit schemes to landlords and tenants because they’re earning up to 30% in commission. To be fair, agents aren’t the only folk milking this cow, I’ve seen a lot of landlord services pushing it.

    I ain’t saying that could be a motive for mis-selling the product to increase revenue, but I certainly ain’t saying it ain’t either.

    Also, let’s not brush past the fact that if 30% referral fees are being tossed around, then there’s clearly plenty of profit in this game.

    (Urgh! Lord have mercy. I’ve probably pushed the knife in too deep at this stage, but I could have got in on some of that sweet action. This scathing blog post may prove to be a horrendous business decision! But be warned, if this page eventually gets edited into one big cheese-ball sales pitch, the odds are my integrity has been compromised and I’ve accepted a giant brown paper bag full of cash. Your boy’s also gotta’ eat!)

  4. Tenant loses incentive to protect their deposit
    From my experience, most tenants are mindful of the fact that their security deposit is always under threat, so they are incentivised to protect it by complying with the agreed terms of the tenancy. But what are they protecting if they have nothing on the line?
  5. Do landlords really want tenants that can’t afford a deposit?
    This is the biggest kicker for me, and why the scheme seems like it’s only creating further financial weakness and instability in the system, by ultimately helping tenants occupy properties they can’t really afford in the first place.

    I don’t understand why any sensible landlord would feel comfortable fast-tracking a tenancy for someone that either can’t or doesn’t want to pay an upfront cash deposit. We’re entering defying common sense territory here.

    As I’m typing this, I’m literally saying to myself, “WTF, this shit sounds so ridiculous!”

  6. Wouldn’t we be enabling poor financial decisions?
    it’s a serious question.

    I just know that if I can’t afford a deposit (for whatever), I’m clearly shopping in the wrong aisle.

    So should I be facilitating someone that’s also in the wrong aisle?

  7. Magnet for poor quality applicants
    I know if I start parading around the fact that I’m down with zero deposit schemes I’m going to get inundated with unsuitable applicants. I know because it’s not rocket science.

    What concerns me is the thought of letting agents convincing landlords that zero deposit schemes is the way to go because it provides better protection. But unbeknown to the landlord, they’ve drastically lowered the barrier to entry, creating a magnet for applicants that wouldn’t ordinarily stand a chance if a traditional cash deposit was required.

    Do I know for a fact it’s happening? No!

    But then again, I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday either.

The wrap-up

The only objectively useful benefit I can extract from this freakshow is that it creates a lower barrier of entry for tenants, which is always cool. However, the more I pick at this scab, the more it looks like a smoke and mirrors play, primarily because the scheme creates an economy where tenants are lead to paying *more* for a service that grants them access to a property they probably can’t afford.

So even though this solution is working for thousands of tenants and landlords (you might be one of them), I can’t get behind it. If our system gets pumped full of this crap, I can easily see it toppling over. It all feels eerily similar to 100% mortgages. Impending doom.

Now I’ve stuck my head through the doors, I can’t shake off the whiff of artificial marketing hype and corporate greed, with vulnerable targets in the cross-hair. it’s like the lingering stench of a decaying donkey corpse in the scorching heat *shudders*

As for my own protection, as a landlord, the scheme, ironically, demands me to take on more risk in some ways (even though the contrary is the cornerstone of the sales pitch), by prioritising speed over suitability, which is clearly as stupid as it sounds. If not more.

Am I saying that the current tenancy deposit protection scheme is a flawless solution? Does a bear shit in ceramic toilets? Fuck no. But I am saying it’s better than the zero deposit grift. So for now I’m sticking with upfront cash deposits and Rent Guarantee Insurance (RGI).

But please do tell me if you think I’ve got this one wrong.

The crux of my concern is that I don’t think No Deposit schemes actually resolves a genuine problem, it just makes you think a cash security deposit is the problem, rather than the cost of living crisis, inflation, sketchy-as-fuck fiscal policy, and someone’s unfortunate financial position. Classic case of misdirection. That’s why I think this product is no more than a cash-grab.

Tell enough grown-arse men that Hair-in-a-Can is the solution for male pattern baldness and you’ll end up with some customers.

Hard pass.

Landlord out xoxo

22 Join the Conversation...

Guest Avatar
Judi Martin 25th May, 2023 @ 14:37

Sadly by the time I get my property back the ridiculous deposit won’t scratch the surface of the cost it will be to right my wrecked property! It’s a joke. Most of the damage done by my tenants won’t even be covered which is criminal in my eyes. They damage something and it’s classed as wear and tear. Eg a wrecked large worktop! I will never rent again. I dread to think how much money I’m going to lose. I pretty much have worked out that at least two years rent will be gone down the drain by the time they go. That’s not counting the thousands to get it in a state to sell it. To myself the deposit scheme is a waste.

Guest Avatar
Duff Man 25th May, 2023 @ 15:25

Any scheme that pays an introducer 30% commission is ripping off one of the members of the food chain

Guest Avatar
Graham Rowe 25th May, 2023 @ 15:36

I've always thought it common sense that if the prospective tenant can't afford the deposit he/they may well not be able to afford the rent after a month or so down the line . I simply stick to the formula, no deposit in full up front no tenancy with me.


Graham Rowe

Guest Avatar
Paul 25th May, 2023 @ 16:08

We manage 150 properties and have about 10 on zero deposit.

We haven't had to claim yet.

It has helped a few tenants who have legitimate reasons for not having cash to rent and, so far, they are looking after the properties. Some have been in for a few years now.

Will update when we get our first claim!

BTW we are only considering zero deposit now for refugees.

Guest Avatar
Yashamatoto 25th May, 2023 @ 16:11

So tenants pay the initial insurance cover but where's the incentive for them to continue paying the annual review fees?
Answer none - then presumably you have a defunct policy that ain't worth a fig!

Guest Avatar
Henry S 25th May, 2023 @ 18:04

Good post The Landlord, and useful comments folks.
Should my agent, or any tenant, suggest one of these, I'll know to decline.

Amazing that one tenant did more damage in 6 months (so in excess of deposit amount, thanks to the stupoid cap), than the previous one did in over 12 years before going into a nursing home (she even had a new kitchen installed as she loved the place). I guess an example of 'swings and roundabouts'.

Guest Avatar
David 25th May, 2023 @ 19:47


I have to say that I TOTALLY agree with you, these are a bad idea.

First and foremost when did you ever have an insurance policy that paid out and you were happy with what they paid? Think about it, car write offs were invented by these Sharks, "sorry guv, beyond economic repair". Travel Insurance, "sorry sir, I think you need to read our 242 pages of exclusions", Medical Insurance, "sorry madam, we demanded access to you medical records going back to when you were 3 years old, you have undeclared pre-existing conditions, I know you had a myocardial infarction while in Greece, but that is your own fault for being fat and eating too much. Building Insurance, "no sonny that is not subsidence unless we say it, please speak to our loss adjuster". Pet Insurance, "sorry your policy has not been in place since birth", "sorry you changed insurance provider", “sorry we don't cover that breed of dog, even though we sold you your policy on that basis, we can give you back your premium but we are not paying the £6000 for your pet's surgery”.

If Insurance were fair there would be no exclusions, they would just average the risk over the whole market, but they are in the game of betting and will move heaven and earth to not pay out.

So in this insurance, they pre-qualify the tenant, so where is the risk, you would be better off using a Tenant Referencing Service and the DPS, the latter is free to Landlords on Custodial scheme.

In my opinion these people are licensed bandits; they need to be highly regulated to within a pubic hair of their jugular and not be allowed any exclusions, nor to refuse a policy to anyone, except those caught defrauding.

Also they all share data to a point which makes them a cartel, this should NOT be allowed.

Also, I think the financial conduct authority should ban this insurance being sold for commission by Agents, because Agents give advice to Landlords on which Tenant to go with, so they are going to choose the one that makes them additional money. It allows Agents to exercise undue influence on the Tenant as well.

The .Gov should have had the balls to ban these in 2019 with the Tenant Fees Act, but a lot of lobbying got it through, if you want to see who benefited check out the declarations on TheyWorkForYou.

Currently there are 3 Government approved deposit protection schemes, if you take a deposit and fail to protect it and/or fail to serve the prescribed information, then you trigger sanctions of between 1x and 3x the deposit PER TENANCY. Guess who is behind the biggest claim firms for no win no fee Solicitors who go after Landlords?


WHY? Quite simply because you can't win if you failed to protect the deposit within 30 days, you can argue fuss and fight, but the lease you will pay is 1x the deposit per tenancy AND the Legal Fees, because the loser always pays the legal fees. The legislation says a Court MUST award between 1x and 3x, so when they do that the Landlord loses and pays the fees. These fees have increased at an alarming rate and dealing with so many claims, I see the pattern of how they generate fees, sometimes as high as £10,000. You can challenge costs but they will try to get their time for preparing for the challenge on costs. Yet there are firms who will charge under £500, and even pull out and settle for £385.

Of Course you have the choice to fully comply with the law in the first place or you don't have to take a deposit.

Deposit or not, you can bring a claim for damages in the Small Claims Court if it is up to £10,000, if it is more they pay the legal costs if they lose on Part8. If you have a genuine claim this is a viable option, you can escalate your claim to High Court Enforcement or even with a basic CCJ screw up their credit record, you can find them through the credit reference agencies via debt collectors and even have an alert bleep them if they are credit checked for energy, a mobile phone etc. Once you find them you can ask the Court to get an attachment to their earnings. My point is that all of this is a big deterrent to them wrecking your property.

Yet from the feedback I have had, the Tenants see this policy as a reason to not take as much care as they would normally.

Now imagine your Tenant has one of these policies and you want to take them to Court for damaging your property, they will have a defence say “your honour, I took out insurance and it should have covered the alleged damage”. Now you have two parties to sue, a Tenant and an Insurance company.

In my opinion there is a very simple solution, first ban these useless policies, second flip the deposit protection schemes so that it is the Tenant that protects their deposit in the existing schemes. So when they go to a new property they fill in the Landlord details and DPS send the Landlord a certificate which confirms they can make a claim against the deposit at the end of the Tenancy and/or use the free ADR service of the Deposit Protection Scheme. When the Tenancy comes to an end it works in exactly the same way as now, either part makes a claim or asks for the release, the other party approves it (or doesn’t), if released the Tenant can leave the deposit in place and add details of a new tenancy and new Landlord.

This would fulfil the goal of making the Tenant's deposit portable, the Tenants would be mindful of returning the property in the same condition it was let.

Remember the Deposit Protection Schemes were invented because too many Landlords abused Tenants and saw their deposit as a redecoration or professional carpet cleaning fund.

I think the Law has it about right in terms of penalties for failure to protect the deposit but I don't like the way the law is being used to beat up Landlords. So until the flipping I suggested above to have the Tenant protect their deposit is implemented, I would simply move Deposit Protection Claims to Part7 track (no legal fees) or to the First Tier Property Tribunal, I would make this retrospective to any claim going back up to 12 years.

As for these policies, if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true.

Guest Avatar
Jennifer Surrey 25th May, 2023 @ 21:06

Excellent article and very informative discussion with great points and suggestions being put forward. I can only agree with David re Insurance policies and insurance companies. I also like his idea of the tenant registering the deposit.

The no deposit scheme is obviously a money making scheme for insurance companies and letting agents at the expense of tenants who cannot afford the deposit (and probably the rent)

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:07


Unfortunately that's a common scenario - when things go wrong (which it often does), a 5 week security deposit provides little compensation. That's why suitable insurance is the safest play, in my opinion. Sure, it can take a while to get paid out, but if things are done properly (e.g. inventory, paperwork etc), a lot of the costs can be recovered.

In any case, sorry to hear about your situation, it always sucks to hear.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:09

@Duff Man

Exactly my thoughts!

30% of one week's rent can quickly add up to a lot of revenue.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:13


100% agreed.

In my opinion, the scheme defies common sense, that's what concerns me. But the bigger concern is that I think the product is being mis-sold, and landlords (perhaps naive landlords) are lead to believe that this scheme provides "better protection". I can't think of another reason for why this scheme has become so popular among average landlords.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:18


Ahh, that's interesting, thanks for sharing. Please do keep us updated.

Your situation is definitely one edge case where I think the scheme can be useful for - when a landlord has a large portfolio and is open to help struggling folk, because then it's easier to offset and manage the risk (in case anything does go wrong).

Very cool that you're able to help refugees with the scheme, I can certainly get behind that. But my question is, how do refugees pass referencing in order to qualify for the scheme?

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:21


That's a really good point/question, and I never actually thought about that. I'm sure the answer is addressed somewhere (I'd like to think so, anyways).

My presumption is that the coverage terminates if the renewal fee is not paid. But then where does that leave the landlord? I have no idea. That's quite a fatal glitch in the matrix!

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:25


Yup, as mentioned a few times, I think the product is being mis-sold, because I really can't think of any other reason for why the scheme would be so popular. That's why I wanted to get this blog post out there, so landlords get a better idea of the trade-offs that are made by signing up the scheme.

Ahh, sorry to hear that. Always the way, I guess. Certainly is a case of 'swings and roundabouts'. Honestly, over the years I've been totally surprised by the tenants that ended up being good and bad. You really never can tell.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 26th May, 2023 @ 10:29


Yup, pretty much agree with everything you said.

I had no idea that there was a lot of lobbying done to the scheme through. Not surprising, mind you. That explains a lot.

As @Jennifer said, I also agree, I like the idea of flipping the system so tenants have to register the deposit. Makes so much more sense!

Guest Avatar
Clem 26th May, 2023 @ 12:06

My wife and I have 3 rental properties, for which we use lettings agencies, so that we have a 'buffer' between us and our tenants. Two of our properties have been fine, but one, through bad tenants trashing the place (twice), along with the proposed changes by HMG has guaranteed our exit from the lettings market.

At present, our lettings agents take care of deposits and so forth, and via the Deposit Guarantee Scheme (or whatever it's called) we have used those funds to help repair/refurbish our properties when tenants vacate. No deposit schemes sound like a nightmare to me, and seem like another reason to hang-up our landlord's hats.

Everything is now so heavily weighed against landlords. I just don't understand why we, as a sector, are being punished so much at a time when there's such a housing crisis unfolding. As our properties become vacant, we'll sell them. Enough is enough.

Guest Avatar
Barbara Bidgood 26th May, 2023 @ 16:15

Tenant with us since July 2014, came as a vulnerable tenant via local council. Always been difficult (have tried twice before, unsuccessfully, to evict her). Behaviour during last six months became 10 times worse - turned the place into a drug den, had two Anti Social Behaviour Orders served on her, which she took absolutely no notice of, caused our tenant in the flat below to have a nervous breakdown. Served with a Section 21 (again). The good news is she moved out a week before it was due to expire. The bad news is, she torched the place before she left. Despite the coffee table with "Burn me NOW" written on it, the three irons switched on face down on the carpet, the manky old oil heater (hers, not ours) wedging open the fire door, the fact that the windows had been open for the first time in nine years, the police say it is not a crime!*! So because it is officially not a crime, we've been told we have to give her the deposit back!!!! Words fail me. We are not wet behind the ears at this game, we've been doing it since 1991, and she's by far the worst we've had. Absolutely agree with Clem above - this is seriously making us consider giving up.

Guest Avatar
Henry S 27th May, 2023 @ 08:38

I thought attempted arson was a crime.
If they 'torched' the place why isn't that arson?

I've agreed with my Agents not to return a deposit for damage that wasn't a crime, and beyond fair wear and tear (including big burn in centre of lounge carpet, scuffs where extra single bed frame (next to a double) placed right against a wall sideways, not mowing grass for months so it went 'clumpy', didn't attempt to clean e.g. inside kitchen cupboards). This was the 6 month tenancy I referred to in Comment no. 6 above. Luckily they wanted to leave, to buy a flat; but that fell through: Just Deserts!

Total cost of work to repair/replace was going to go over deposit, so they got none back - they were surprised (I saw their e-mail back to Agents). But luckily they didn't dispute so I could get on with repairs etc. and re-let (after some weeks of work). I didn't pursue them for the amount over the deposit

Guest Avatar
Jeremy Taylor 27th May, 2023 @ 14:14

Very interesting post. I won't be using the no deposit scheme.
On a slightly different note, I see the agents have now offering "Rent Management" correct me if I am wrong but this looks like renewals in disguise. I pointed this out to an agent who was pursuing me to let my property through them, saying that it looked to me as if even you manage the property yourself, you will paying the agent 10+% for transferring the tenants rent to you. Nice work if you can get it.
No wonder I use OpenRent.

Guest Avatar
Irfan 27th May, 2023 @ 23:37

Very good analysis, thanks for sharing. My thoughts exactly! - Zero-deposit scheme, they really suck but won't be surprising if some day politics will make this as a law to just accept tenants with zero-deposit scheme insurance in place. They moan about deposits all the time so there's that!

Guest Avatar
GriffMG 28th May, 2023 @ 17:05

Another financial scam if you ask me, which you did not...

Other half says 'hah, fat chance I'll fall for that one'.

Great article, thank you.

Guest Avatar
Paul 20th September, 2023 @ 04:27

The deposit scheme is solely for the tenants not landlords it doesn't cover any amount damageso they cause can in a properties.
Just money making task for government high interest rates excellent return on free money in holding account,paid in by the majority of Agents and Landlords.
Zero deposit is a great idea stop giving the government free money don't think make enough money for income fuel council clean air taxes some you won't agree with my comments however look at the bigger picture the government giveaways free money if your unemployed however no help to people who work, the system is flawed what's the incentive for people to work when you have free money given to you.

















Your personal information will *never* be sold or shared to a 3rd party. By submitting your details, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

I want more info on...