Deposit replacement firm Reposit has rebuffed claims that both its product and those offered by its competitors could be in breach of the tenant fees ban due to come in on June 1st.
The fees ban legislation makes it clear that letting agents will only be compliant if they offer deposit replacement products like Reposit’s as an alternative – rather than a replacement – for a traditional cash deposit.
But a Jackson-Stops letting agent Simon Roberts yesterday suggested that tenants who cannot afford a large deposit for a property may have no choice but to sign up to and pay for a deposit alternative.
Therefore, he has argued, these products “will be in breach of the new legislation” and could create a ‘PPI-style’ compensation scandal.
Jude Greer, Reposit’s co-founder (pictured, above), says the comparisons with PPI are ‘misguided though understandable’ given the PPI debacle.
“PPI was clearly mis-sold and did not function as was promised for the majority of people when it came time to claim,” he says.
“Some consumers were not aware they were purchasing the product, as it was buried within credit agreements.
“If agents were bundling the cost of a deposit replacement product within their letting fee, were being purposefully deceptive and were forcing the unsuspecting tenant to purchase the product then I would understand the comparison, but that isn’t what is happening here.”
Greer claims that it is ‘not in Reposit’s interest’ to force its product on a tenant and that the company have structured every element of its offering and partnership process to avoid this.
“To date we have had 3,000 or more tenants choose Reposit over the standard deposit and none of them have indicated they were not offered a choice,” he says.
Read more about Reposit.