Landlords to be Licensed

tbs624

You can read the full report itself (preferable to any random journalistic/fundamentalist HPCer/strident pro-LL interpretations of its contents ) here

inmypocketnottheirs

Old_Git wrote: »

when we are at it shouldn't we licence letting agents as well

Licence everyone would be the way forward. We could instigate a national scheme whereby everyone has to carry a biometric card with all their personal data and information on. Then a law could be passed whereby it would be illegal to walk the street without the 'licence' and any one caught doing so could be imprisoned without any hearing or appeal.

stevetodd

dealornodeal wrote: »

But the fees would be passed on to the tenant, by way of increased rent; wouldnt you agree?

Yes just like the deposit protection scheme, in fact I said so on this thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1242799 ie

Also somewhere along the line this would at least in part end up being added to rents, so the tenants would also end up contributing towards this

stevetodd

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Licence everyone would be the way forward. We could instigate a national scheme whereby everyone has to carry a biometric card with all their personal data and information on. Then a law could be passed whereby it would be illegal to walk the street without the 'licence' and any one caught doing so could be imprisoned without any hearing or appeal.

We could also license the people who issue the licenses, no wait that would be the LA! They probably would not be intelligent enough to get a license

speedtwin

Old_Git wrote: »

when we are at it shouldn't we licence letting agents as well

If a landlord uses a regulated agent who belongs to ARLA they have a lot more protection. If they decide not to, they take all the risks that go with it.

It is no differant than using joe bloggs who works from home to fix your car. If it then blows up you would be more likely to have more protection if you took it to the correct dealership.

It is you choice. (Not the best example i know)

I would just like to add there are some very good agents who arent regulated as there are good machanics who work from home.

Cleaver

I think we've had the same happy tenants in our property for nearly two years because we've not once denied any request or work they felt needed doing on the property, we reduced the rent this year to say thank you to them for signing another 12 month contract, we use an excellent letting agency who get everything sorted within 24 hours and the fact that we couldn't rest at night if we felt our tenants weren't 100% happy with the house.

Not sure how you test that in a license, but don't think it's a totally bad idea. I just think to be a good landlord with long-term tenants you need to really, honestly care about the people in your property, which is hard to capture in a test or form.

tbs624

speedtwin wrote: »

If a landlord uses a regulated agent who belongs to ARLA they have a lot more protection. If they decide not to, they take all the risks that go with it.

It is no differant than using joe bloggs who works from home to fix your car. If it then blows up you would be more likely to have more protection if you took it to the correct dealership.

It is you choice. (Not the best example i know)

I would just like to add there are some very good agents who arent regulated as there are good machanics who work from home.

There are also many LLs who self-manage their properties to a higher standard than would the local LA, whether or not the LA is an ARLA member.

There seem to be both tenants and LLs who have less than satisfactory experiences with LAs who *are* signed up to the current voluntary codes of practice. Being a member doesn't stop them from charging those monumental "admin fees" either, a key source of dissatisfaction, and you will still get individual staff members who haven't a clue on how to behave in a professional manner.

speedtwin

tbs624 wrote: »

There are also many LLs who self-manage their properties to a higher standard than would the local LA, whether or not the LA is an ARLA member.

There seem to be both tenants and LLs who have less than satisfactory experiences with LAs who *are* signed up to the current voluntary codes of practice. Being a member doesn't stop them from charging those monumental "admin fees" either, a key source of dissatisfaction, and you will still get individual staff members who haven't a clue on how to behave in a professional manner.

I dont disagree, you get buisnesses in all walks of life who are good and bad but using a regulated agent you at know they have had a certain level of training and the rents and deposits are kept in a ring fenced client a/c with a level of protection. Regarding commission and admin fee's it is down to the Landlord and if he doesnt like it go else where, no one is forcing him to use a certain agent.

neverdespairgirl

Cleaver wrote: »

Not sure how you test that in a license, but don't think it's a totally bad idea. I just think to be a good landlord with long-term tenants you need to really, honestly care about the people in your property, which is hard to capture in a test or form.

We have a great LL, and I think we are pretty good tenants - we don't bother them about minor stuff, just sort it out, and always pay our rent on time, so everyone's happy.