Renting A House - Self-Employed

Vegeta

Ok, the letting agents are satisfied with my income but haven't done the credit check yet because they have told me they have tried to contact the landlord (on 30th Nov and prior) to ask if its ok for me to rent the house but he isn't answering the phone.

I viewed the house on the 23rd Nov and handed in all the forms with bank account details, employment etc on the 30th and have heard nothing since.

Do you think this is genuine or are they just fobbing me off as the two women at the agency were acting strange...

I do know I am the first and only person to view the house so far. Is this a delay tactic because the landlord wants some other people to view the house and choose from amongst a few?

PasturesNew

I don't have a guarantor and when I rented through an agent I still had to have the credit checks done, then I just paid 6 months' rent up front.

It is an awful feeling, as if you're lying or hiding something.

Vegeta

Well I told them that if they are not satisfied with my income then I have considerable savings or a guarantor who is a Pharmacist.

They said the stated income is fine but its just that they need to contact the landlord to proceed.

I don't know what to think.

property.advert

I went through this a few months ago and a few things came up.

Paying up front. Every agent I spoke to would pass the rent on to the landlord and no agent would hold it in their client account. I was not happy with this as I did not see why I should trust the landlord with thousands of pounds plus a deposit. The agents rarely came across this and none of them had thought out the implications of paying so much in advance and then having a problem.

Larger deposits. This would be held in the same way as a regular deposit and provides the landlord with extra security. However, it has the disadvantage that you have no access to this money unless you ask to revert to standard terms after some period of time.

In the end I went direct with an owner. I needed the immediacy of it all and could not be doing with idiots working for agents who could not work outside the box.

Fire_Fox

princessamy86 wrote: »

I think the worry is that if the landlord goes bankrupt and the property gets repossessed (for example), then it would probably mean the end of your upfront payment. I think also some people don't consider what will actually happen to the money, and don't get a proper receipt.

As long as you or the letting agent has seen consent to lease from the lender, the lender cannot evict you within the fixed term., i,e. during the six months you have paid up front. Not getting a receipt is stupidity whether it's £100 or £1000!! As stated I can't see the point in getting uptight about who might run off with your money, instead dot the i's and cross the t's so they can't.

Jowo_2

property.advert wrote: »

I went through this a few months ago and a few things came up.

Paying up front. Every agent I spoke to would pass the rent on to the landlord and no agent would hold it in their client account. I was not happy with this as I did not see why I should trust the landlord with thousands of pounds plus a deposit. The agents rarely came across this and none of them had thought out the implications of paying so much in advance and then having a problem.

Larger deposits. This would be held in the same way as a regular deposit and provides the landlord with extra security. However, it has the disadvantage that you have no access to this money unless you ask to revert to standard terms after some period of time.

In the end I went direct with an owner. I needed the immediacy of it all and could not be doing with idiots working for agents who could not work outside the box.

I can't see why an agent keeping the upfront rent offers any greater protection than them passing it onto the landlord.

The rent is not the agent's money so its not a question of 'thinking outside the box' - they are mere intermediaries for the landlord and they will have a contract with the landlord that obliges them to pass it onto the landlord.

In the event of a dispute with the agent, a tenant has to take the landlord to court - that's who the tenant has the direct legal relationship with anyhow.

Having the agent sit on the rent offers scant protection unless they belong to a professional body such as ARLA where client funds are protected - there is no legal requirement for agents to keep client money separate. Most agents don't belong to professional bodies anyhow and some agents go out of business and some rogue ones are serial absconders with clients deposit and rent money.

The lack of incentive for a landlord to act when they've received rental payment in advance can also apply to agents that could also be disincentivised to act on repair problems.

Miss Moneypenny has a thread which explains the importance of verifying that a landlord has permission from the lender to let out the property which offers greater protection to tenants who live in properties that get repossessed by the lender. So its not who sits on the wad of the tenants cash that necessarily causes the problem, but that lenders don't have to honour an AST as part of the eviction/repossession process when the landlord hasn't got permission to rent the property from them.

adg1

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I don't see what the worry is with anyone 'running off' with upfront payments.

A landlord I have dealt with in the past was made bankrupt and lost his property, after the tenants had paid a full 12 months rent in advance (crazy to pay that much I know). They were forced to move out after only a few months and lost the rest of the 12 months rent they had paid in advance as the LA had transferred it all to the landlord already and it had been wound up in all his other goings on.

Harsh story but it can happen I suppose.

Vegeta

Still not heard anything today. I'm going to wait until next Thursday and if I don't hear anything from them then I'll get my paperwork back and look for another house...

Fire_Fox

adg1 wrote: »

A landlord I have dealt with in the past was made bankrupt and lost his property, after the tenants had paid a full 12 months rent in advance (crazy to pay that much I know). They were forced to move out after only a few months and lost the rest of the 12 months rent they had paid in advance as the LA had transferred it all to the landlord already and it had been wound up in all his other goings on.

Harsh story but it can happen I suppose.

Either the landlord didn't have consent to lease and the tenancy wasn't recognised or the tenants were out of the initial six/ twelve month fixed term by the time they were evicted. AFAIK if there was consent to lease and a valid AST in place the lender would have had to honour it.