Zero Deposit, the new deposit replacement product backed by ZPG and founded by Zoopla’s former chief commercial officer Jon Notley, has secured some significant new investors.
They include former Countrywide CEO and chairman Grenville Turner.
Others are JamJar Investments, the venture capital fund that backed Innocent drinks; and Vanneck and KM Capital, two UK investment funds.
Turner said: “We have been hugely impressed by the work that the Zero Deposit team has done so far and with the partnerships that they have formed.
“Rental affordability is a big issue and Zero Deposit have developed the right solution, and we look forward to supporting them as they come to market.”
Richard Reed, co-founder of JamJar Investments, said: ‘We invest in businesses that are destined to grow by improving the lives of consumers.
“By hugely reducing the amount of money renters need to pay up-front to secure their new pad, Zero Deposit is bringing much-needed reductions to the costs of renting a property.”
Zero Deposit has yet to start trading, and as well as ZPG backing has a partnership with Munich Re. Its directors are Notley and LSL chairman Simon Embley.
Notley said of the latest backers: “We are delighted to welcome on board such a broad and credible group of financial investors.
“They bring a wealth of resource and experience and we look forward to working with them as we roll out and develop the Zero Deposit brand and product.
“We have more than £5m in investment and support in place which I believe will help us secure Zero Deposit as the major player in the deposit replacement space.”
Of future partnerships, Notley said: “We are bringing together an industry-wide team of partners and investors, and we are due to make further announcements in the coming weeks as we continue to build and prepare for our launch expected later in 2017.”
Under Zero Deposit, tenants would be given the choice to pay what is usually six weeks of rent into a protection scheme, or to pay the equivalent of one week’s rent which would be non-refundable, but which would give landlords the same security.
Tenants would still have to take responsibility for the property, such as paying for any damage at the end of the tenancy.