Two Labour peers have tabled an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill, which would ban letting agents from taking money from tenants unless they have Client Money Protection insurance.
Agents would also have to issue a certificate certifying that they do have CMP.
Baroness Hayter and Lord Kennedy are behind the amendment, which has the full support of Labour.
An earlier attempt to introduce the amendment in the Commons was over-turned by the Government after opposition by housing minister Brandon Lewis.
Agents who feel strongly that there should be mandatory Client Money Protection can lobby members of the House of Lords – the link below tells you who they are and what party they belong to. Clicking on individual names reveals email addresses.
Small point, “Client money protection” it presumably protects clients’ money? how does that help tenants who are not clients.
It is all well and good having the authority of a title but surely that comes with the responsibility of knowing what one is on about before sounding off?
Professional indemnity insurance protects the Directors and Principals on firms from having rogue staff and or rogue software (a lot missing client money is software related) and so cover clients and tenants from losses created by a third party (not the boss)
Client money protection is an insurance which a boss can buy to cover losses they create, nicking or mis-managing the administration of the client account
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi Robert – Remember that the effect of CMP is to ensure the tenant gets their money back – it’s not just about deposits, but rent also. As you know, in the event an agent goes bust or misappropriates funds, it is incumbent of the Landlord to repay the deposit to the tenant even if it was held by the agent.
As such, it is the landlord client who is ultimately protected against such claims.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I don’t disagree and would fully support CMP if it was only available through a 3rd party regulator who is insuring the risk rather than the individuals insuring themselves.
A rouge agent by definition can’t be trusted to keep their insurance up to date or pay for the insurance out of their own funds rather than client’s. A 3rd party regulator who only insures reconciled client cash account holders means rogues and rotters would not have compulsory CMP and there would be unable to trade legally.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register