Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ultimatefighter
    • By ultimatefighter 20th Sep 16, 3:06 PM
    • 115Posts
    • 11Thanks
    ultimatefighter
    Tenant Fees - Infuriating
    • #1
    • 20th Sep 16, 3:06 PM
    Tenant Fees - Infuriating 20th Sep 16 at 3:06 PM
    I am about to move into a property however as a tenant, the agency want £355 in fees.


    £240 for admin
    £115 for check in


    Tenant ref actual cost £20
    Tenancy agreement cost £0 as copied and pasted from others simply time (doesn't take an hour to amend details)
    Survey of Property.


    I spoke with the director of the letting agency who did not want to reduce fees whatsoever. He was not up for negotiating in the slightest.


    What can one do about this aside from pay the £40 to £50 it costs for the survey oneself and avoid the £115


    But the £240 for admin... that's £220 spare..


    the landlord is also being charged.
Page 5
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 23rd Sep 16, 1:04 PM
    • 12,042 Posts
    • 11,454 Thanks
    Guest101
    I'm talking about the vast diufference in opportunity for basic living standards between the rich and poor.

    I disagree, the opportunity for 'basic living standards' is afforded to everyone. What you're saying is that some people are more easily afforded this.


    I never said it is.

    apologies, that's the message I was getting


    I've also never said anyone is at fault. In fact, thats precisely my point, isn't it! Just because some vague tiny possibility exists that people might be able to catch the right piece of luck doesn't make everything fair.


    But who says life should be fair?

    Your definition of fair - that's not what i said. I said life isn't fair is that the same obstacles are in everybody's way, ignoring the fact that everybody's capability to overcome those obstacles is completely different. - But that's what life is. Not everyone will be a CEO, or a surgeon or a footballer. But everyone has the opportunity to have a nice life. My definition is that everybody should have the same recourse to things to help them overcome those obstacles. - They do. Everyone is entitled to all the support packages and more, which I mentioned earlier. Some people will still manage further/higher/faster goals - but everybody has to be able to accomplish enough to keep living. - They do. Please can you tell me where this isn't true in the law or the system




    No, there really isn't; thats the point I'm attempting to make. A chance exists, and it effectively comes down to exactly that, luck. Thats fine when it comes to striking it rich, but not when it comes to being able to live a decent life. - Can you highlight some examples?




    no, no it's not. You're still only prepared to focus on people who have refused to help themselves at some point. Aside from the obvious callousness of cutting people off based on singular decisions made as a youth, you're still avoiding the very real issue that many people are in these situations through absolutely no fault of their own.
    Originally posted by Naf


    In what way? Give me examples.


    Its no different to people who say we live in a 'racist society' or a 'rape society' or a 'misogynistic society', show your reasoning for this
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 23rd Sep 16, 2:55 PM
    • 957 Posts
    • 1,148 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I'm talking about the vast diufference in opportunity for basic living standards between the rich and poor.




    I never said it is.




    I've also never said anyone is at fault. In fact, thats precisely my point, isn't it! Just because some vague tiny possibility exists that people might be able to catch the right piece of luck doesn't make everything fair.
    Your definition of fair is that the same obstacles are in everybody's way, ignoring the fact that everybody's capability to overcome those obstacles is completely different. My definition is that everybody should have the same recourse to things to help them overcome those obstacles. Some people will still manage further/higher/faster goals - but everybody has to be able to accomplish enough to keep living.




    No, there really isn't; thats the point I'm attempting to make. A chance exists, and it effectively comes down to exactly that, luck. Thats fine when it comes to striking it rich, but not when it comes to being able to live a decent life.




    no, no it's not. You're still only prepared to focus on people who have refused to help themselves at some point. Aside from the obvious callousness of cutting people off based on singular decisions made as a youth, you're still avoiding the very real issue that many people are in these situations through absolutely no fault of their own.
    Originally posted by Naf
    If you are talking about rich people are you referring to the ones who inherited money or the ones who came to this country as refugees and worked hard? There are some extremely rich business people in the UK who arrived with nothing. Luck has got nothing to do with how much they are worth. It was all down to sheer hard work. If you can become very wealthy having arrived in the UK with nothing it therefore follows that anyone can do this.

    Minimum wage jobs buy more things in some parts of the country than others.

    Many or the people you are accusing of becoming landlords were forced to buy somewhere to live when young or continue to live with their parents. There was very little rented property available because the rent acts had reduced the number of landlords. However you couldn't get a council house either so if you wanted to move out of your parents house you had to buy something. Choice was very limited. There is more choice now. Some people bought a house and couldn't afford to furnish it. A bed would be a mattress on the floor with no carpets. When you can remember situations like this it is easy to see that today everyone is better off. Central heating and night storage heaters are a relatively new invention. To compare like with like you have got to be able to provide examples of people living in houses, with no central heating or night storage heaters, only a coal fire in one room, no carpets no furniture and no beds only mattresses. They didn't have cars and only used public transport and they didn't eat out. This is what people had to do years ago to get somewhere to live. If you were really lucky you might get a council house but council houses were not available to anyone who wanted one. There was private rented accommodation but due to the rent acts people did not move and when property did become vacant landlords tended to sell it.

    You are complaining about life not being fair. Life isn't fair but it is what you make of it.
    • WolfSong2000
    • By WolfSong2000 23rd Sep 16, 5:44 PM
    • 1,626 Posts
    • 1,923 Thanks
    WolfSong2000
    Blimey, £700?!

    I'd have tried negotiating with the LL and got him to ditch the rogue agent and deal direct if you have their good will.

    We should have adopted Scotland's systems by now.
    Originally posted by marksoton
    Over £700...and the terms were crazy. e.g. pay first month's rent at the same time you pay for referencing - if you fail referencing, a deduction is made for every day the property has been "off the market" whilst referencing was taking place. So if referencing took a month and then referencing agency decided you failed (worst case scenario) then you'd lose the entire month's rent you'd paid on top of the credit referencing and application fees (yes, there was a separate "application fee").

    Unfortunately the landlord was an elderly lady and I am fairly sure the letting agents were bullying her to a degree. On the day I was initially meant to view the property with the letting agent I arrived late (road closure necessitated long detour). Letting agent cancelled the appointment, but the landlady lives on site (totally separate building) and agreed to show me around but said she would have to be careful as the letting agent didn't like her showing people round? She sounded very nervous about it, poor thing.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 23rd Sep 16, 6:40 PM
    • 12,042 Posts
    • 11,454 Thanks
    Guest101
    Over £700...and the terms were crazy. e.g. pay first month's rent at the same time you pay for referencing - if you fail referencing, a deduction is made for every day the property has been "off the market" whilst referencing was taking place. So if referencing took a month and then referencing agency decided you failed (worst case scenario) then you'd lose the entire month's rent you'd paid on top of the credit referencing and application fees (yes, there was a separate "application fee").

    Unfortunately the landlord was an elderly lady and I am fairly sure the letting agents were bullying her to a degree. On the day I was initially meant to view the property with the letting agent I arrived late (road closure necessitated long detour). Letting agent cancelled the appointment, but the landlady lives on site (totally separate building) and agreed to show me around but said she would have to be careful as the letting agent didn't like her showing people round? She sounded very nervous about it, poor thing.
    Originally posted by WolfSong2000
    Fairly sure those fees would be unlawful and easily challenged
    • WolfSong2000
    • By WolfSong2000 24th Sep 16, 3:46 PM
    • 1,626 Posts
    • 1,923 Thanks
    WolfSong2000
    Fairly sure those fees would be unlawful and easily challenged
    Originally posted by Guest101
    I did speak to a lawyer who just said that as long as they're upfront with their costs they can charge what they like as it's a free market. I had said to Sanderson's from the outset that I was happy to pay reasonable fees - I appreciate they are a business and need to make money - but I felt that the fees did not reflect the actual cost of the work involved (plus a modest profit). They dragged their feet and agreed to lower fees to £420, then dragged their feet some more and insisted that I buy insurance to cover the landlord's goods (I pointed out that this could cause problems as landlord has already insured her goods, so insurance companies could just point the finger at each other)....then more unnecessary delays suddenly deciding to change the criteria needed for me to pass the referencing (they wanted proof of a £33k net income rather than the £33k gross they'd initially said). It all just turned into a massive mess and basically fell apart (I suspect the landlord got fed up with all the delays). I know for a fact they lied to me at least once (saying they had spoken to the landlord who had insisted on insurance - I'd spoken to the landlord myself the previous evening and they'd said no such thing). Sandersons are a nasty piece of work.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 24th Sep 16, 6:28 PM
    • 12,042 Posts
    • 11,454 Thanks
    Guest101
    I did speak to a lawyer who just said that as long as they're upfront with their costs they can charge what they like as it's a free market. I had said to Sanderson's from the outset that I was happy to pay reasonable fees - I appreciate they are a business and need to make money - but I felt that the fees did not reflect the actual cost of the work involved (plus a modest profit). They dragged their feet and agreed to lower fees to £420, then dragged their feet some more and insisted that I buy insurance to cover the landlord's goods (I pointed out that this could cause problems as landlord has already insured her goods, so insurance companies could just point the finger at each other)....then more unnecessary delays suddenly deciding to change the criteria needed for me to pass the referencing (they wanted proof of a £33k net income rather than the £33k gross they'd initially said). It all just turned into a massive mess and basically fell apart (I suspect the landlord got fed up with all the delays). I know for a fact they lied to me at least once (saying they had spoken to the landlord who had insisted on insurance - I'd spoken to the landlord myself the previous evening and they'd said no such thing). Sandersons are a nasty piece of work.
    Originally posted by WolfSong2000
    Not disagreeing, just to say, find a new solicitor- there is plenty of legislation which prevents such contracts from being enforced
    • Miss Samantha
    • By Miss Samantha 24th Sep 16, 6:56 PM
    • 910 Posts
    • 872 Thanks
    Miss Samantha
    I don't think such agreement is unlawful as long as the criteria for passing the referencing are clearly stated beforehand along with the condition that money will be charged only if these criteria are not met.
    • BadBehaviour
    • By BadBehaviour 6th Oct 16, 5:23 AM
    • 246 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    BadBehaviour
    Sure.

    You see life isn't fair. Now that we can accept such a basic principle, in which no one owes you ( the overall 'you', not specifically 'naf') a living. Life is what you make of it.

    Everyone has access to an education, all the way up to uni. If you choose not to make the most of that, that's not my fault.

    It's not my fault that the only jobs available are minimum wage, but even then the govt tips up low incomes. ( via numerous benefits ).

    Can you point out where the state directly keeps people in poverty? To clarify my point: there is a sizeable tax free allowance, child benefit, c/w tax credits. Housing benefit. Council tax benefit. Free education Free healthcare. Social housing. - I think the poor are fairly well supported.

    If NMW is all that's suitable then those roles are available across the country. So travel would not be required
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Going to uni isn't free. It's accessible if you can afford it. Not everyone can get a student loan.

    Thing is to go and work somewhere far from your area you have to travel which costs money and you need to find accommodation before you start working and get your first wages so I guess you have no idea of what you're talking about and for your information, single people under 35 with no kids and no disability get 0 help with housing if they're poor, unless they make do with living in shared accommodation with strangers or in utter dumps.

    We are not treated equally by the system because single working guy/woman with no kids and healthy with low paying job is at the bottom of the list when it comes to help despite not having brought into this world kids they can't afford to raise decently (sorry for the rant but if I had a kid now I'd have a nice council house and I don't want to have a kid as a meal ticket).
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 6th Oct 16, 7:38 AM
    • 12,042 Posts
    • 11,454 Thanks
    Guest101
    Going to uni isn't free. It's accessible if you can afford it. Not everyone can get a student loan. - most people can.

    Thing is to go and work somewhere far from your area you have to travel which costs money and you need to find accommodation before you start working and get your first wages so I guess you have no idea of what you're talking about - oh really? A room in a shared house requires very few checks, and deposits are usually small. A train ticket is not beyond the reach. and for your information, single people under 35 with no kids and no disability get 0 help with housing if they're poor, unless they make do with living in shared accommodation with strangers or in utter dumps. thats the rate which is paid. Why should it be higher? You can get more if you pay for it, but why should I pay for you to have a house to yourself?

    We are not treated equally by the system because single working guy/woman with no kids and healthy with low paying job is at the bottom of the list when it comes to help - because you need the least help! Seriously?! despite not having brought into this world kids they can't afford to raise decently (sorry for the rant but if I had a kid now I'd have a nice council house and I don't want to have a kid as a meal ticket).
    Originally posted by BadBehaviour
    Nor should you, but how is that an 'unfair' system. Kids have more needs than you.
    • preciousillusions
    • By preciousillusions 8th Oct 16, 11:33 PM
    • 487 Posts
    • 699 Thanks
    preciousillusions
    I paid near to 1.5k in fees (including processing of a guarantor) in the South West plus 1 and 1/2 months rent in advance to get into my last flat only to be given a section 21 just 6 months later. This was after the landlord decided to sell as he couldn't maintain the property to habitable standards (damp and mould everywhere) so a revenge eviction pretty much. & so I had to pay just over 1k again to find another place. Now a year later I am having to pay £125 for just two documents to be printed out to renew the contract. All lining the Letting Agents pockets. & sadly, in this area, this amount is not unusual. So yeah, it could be worse, basically.
    Last edited by preciousillusions; 08-10-2016 at 11:36 PM.
    • ska lover
    • By ska lover 9th Oct 16, 12:04 AM
    • 2,474 Posts
    • 5,867 Thanks
    ska lover
    Nor should you, but how is that an 'unfair' system. Kids have more needs than you.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Guest, again, you have offered nothing of value.

    Never one to offer advice or assistance - you giving ''your opinion'' is more often than not just an excuse for you to be rude.

    Why don't you just stop.
    Blah blah blah.
    • Riggyman
    • By Riggyman 9th Oct 16, 1:32 AM
    • 97 Posts
    • 61 Thanks
    Riggyman
    Rent somewhere else, or re-negotiate the fees. That clearly is the market rate or no-one would be interested.
    • csgohan4
    • By csgohan4 9th Oct 16, 8:18 AM
    • 2,596 Posts
    • 1,605 Thanks
    csgohan4
    Guest, again, you have offered nothing of value.

    Never one to offer advice or assistance - you giving ''your opinion'' is more often than not just an excuse for you to be rude.

    Why don't you just stop.
    Originally posted by ska lover


    Look who's talking
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 9th Oct 16, 8:50 AM
    • 12,042 Posts
    • 11,454 Thanks
    Guest101
    Guest, again, you have offered nothing of value.

    Never one to offer advice or assistance - you giving ''your opinion'' is more often than not just an excuse for you to be rude.

    Why don't you just stop.
    Originally posted by ska lover
    "I don't like what the mean man said"

    I offer advice all the time. In this case there was no tangible advice to offer.
    • theartfullodger
    • By theartfullodger 9th Oct 16, 8:57 AM
    • 8,354 Posts
    • 10,905 Thanks
    theartfullodger
    Guest, again, you have offered nothing of value.

    Never one to offer advice or assistance - you giving ''your opinion'' is more often than not just an excuse for you to be rude.

    Why don't you just stop.
    Originally posted by ska lover
    Really? Guest's stats
    Thanked 10,671 Times in 5,066 Posts...
    ""Never one to offer advice or assistance"".. appears, err, a terminological inexactitude..... (See Winston..)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminological_inexactitude
    Last edited by theartfullodger; 09-10-2016 at 8:59 AM.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 9th Oct 16, 8:57 AM
    • 8,872 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    I paid near to 1.5k in fees (including processing of a guarantor) in the South West plus 1 and 1/2 months rent in advance to get into my last flat only to be given a section 21 just 6 months later. This was after the landlord decided to sell as he couldn't maintain the property to habitable standards (damp and mould everywhere) so a revenge eviction pretty much. & so I had to pay just over 1k again to find another place. Now a year later I am having to pay £125 for just two documents to be printed out to renew the contract. All lining the Letting Agents pockets. & sadly, in this area, this amount is not unusual. So yeah, it could be worse, basically.
    Originally posted by preciousillusions
    You don't have to renew you tenancy each time the fixed term ends. You could do nothing and just allow the tenancy to become periodic. The letting agent can't do anything to prevent this because it's either statutory or contractual law.

    Yes the letting agent might threaten you with a Section 21 but the letting agent can't take you to court. Since your contract is with the landlord only the landlord could take you to court or appoint a solicitor to represent him/her in court. From a business point of view does it make any sense to evict a decent, paying tenant? Not if you're the landlord. From the letting agents point of view? Yes it's good to have a constant churn of tenants. All those referencing fees from tenants and tenant finder fees from the landlord....kerching!
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 9th Oct 16, 9:00 AM
    • 8,872 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    Rent somewhere else, or re-negotiate the fees. That clearly is the market rate or no-one would be interested.
    Originally posted by Riggyman
    It's not as straightforward as that. You'll probably find that in each area referencing fees are more or less the same because letting agency fees in England are completely unregulated. Furthermore, if you live in an area where demand for rental properties is high the tenant has little negotiating power. You don't want to pay the fees, that's fine there are a dozen other tenants out there who will.

    I wonder how many landlords who use letting agents are aware of just how much tenants are being charged for referencing.
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • preciousillusions
    • By preciousillusions 9th Oct 16, 6:59 PM
    • 487 Posts
    • 699 Thanks
    preciousillusions
    You don't have to renew you tenancy each time the fixed term ends. You could do nothing and just allow the tenancy to become periodic. The letting agent can't do anything to prevent this because it's either statutory or contractual law.

    Yes the letting agent might threaten you with a Section 21 but the letting agent can't take you to court. Since your contract is with the landlord only the landlord could take you to court or appoint a solicitor to represent him/her in court. From a business point of view does it make any sense to evict a decent, paying tenant? Not if you're the landlord. From the letting agents point of view? Yes it's good to have a constant churn of tenants. All those referencing fees from tenants and tenant finder fees from the landlord....kerching!
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    But I don't have a new contract and my last one ends this month? Plus need that contract on paper to claim my HB for the next year. I really can't risk upsetting my current landlord either due to last bad experience. Rent is also increasing so surely a new contract is needed for that? The letter basically stated that my contract is ending but that they are offering me another 12 months at XXXPCM and to accept I would need to call and pay £125 processing fees asap.
    Last edited by preciousillusions; 09-10-2016 at 7:04 PM.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 9th Oct 16, 7:40 PM
    • 8,872 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    But I don't have a new contract and my last one ends this month? Plus need that contract on paper to claim my HB for the next year. I really can't risk upsetting my current landlord either due to last bad experience. Rent is also increasing so surely a new contract is needed for that? The letter basically stated that my contract is ending but that they are offering me another 12 months at XXXPCM and to accept I would need to call and pay £125 processing fees asap.
    Originally posted by preciousillusions
    The fixed term is ending not your tenancy. If you do nothing then the day after your fixed term ends you will have a periodic tenancy. Periodic tenancies are legally binding and if the letting agent had really said that your contract is ending they are talking piffle.

    You don't need to sign a new TA to increase the rent either. You can just accept that the rent will be £X pcm from the start of your periodic tenancy and start paying it.

    It's possible to bypass the letting agent and deal directly with the landlord regarding this or any other matter. It's quite possible the letting agent is also charging the landlord a renewal fee too.

    Those processing your HB should be well aware of periodic tenancies, if not they're in the wrong job.

    Read these links (I can't format them nicely in my phone).

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67759913&postcount=4

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67759920&postcount=5
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • preciousillusions
    • By preciousillusions 10th Oct 16, 7:09 PM
    • 487 Posts
    • 699 Thanks
    preciousillusions
    The fixed term is ending not your tenancy. If you do nothing then the day after your fixed term ends you will have a periodic tenancy. Periodic tenancies are legally binding and if the letting agent had really said that your contract is ending they are talking piffle.

    You don't need to sign a new TA to increase the rent either. You can just accept that the rent will be £X pcm from the start of your periodic tenancy and start paying it.

    It's possible to bypass the letting agent and deal directly with the landlord regarding this or any other matter. It's quite possible the letting agent is also charging the landlord a renewal fee too.

    Those processing your HB should be well aware of periodic tenancies, if not they're in the wrong job.

    Read these links (I can't format them nicely in my phone).

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67759913&postcount=4

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67759920&postcount=5
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    I believe you and thank you for the explanation, but I still don't think it would work . I saw my landlord (one of, they are a couple) last week and explained I wouldn't be able to pay the renewal fee till literally a day before my contract ends and she said that would be fine, nothing about me not having to go through that process. So I don't think they would be happy otherwise unfortunately.

    All ll I know is my HB is being paid until the end of the tenancy period on my last contract and I'd need to provide them with the new one signed be me and the landlord to process the new claim as is true of all councils I think? They won't pay unless they see such a document.

    The LL is actually going to cut out the maintenance part of what they are paying for property management services as it just creates more issues but explained to me they'd still be paying for the admin/collection of rent etc portion.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,154Posts Today

5,924Users online

Martin's Twitter