Rent Admin Fee

tbs624

Jowo wrote: »

Well, as they are run as businesses which seek to turn a profit, then they must make changes in their interests to cover decline in other areas. So far as basic capitalism goes, no surprise here.

Hmmm.. your response earlier was that

Jowo wrote:

It's the norm for tenants to pay admin fees to the agent which tends to cover activities such as drawing up the contract, taking up references/credit check and so forth.

so firstly you seemed to be suggesting that the fees were justified because they "covered" x, y and z specific to the tenancy ( already charged by the LA to the LL) and you now seem to be saying that it's fine to charge the unsuspecting T a further general sum to cover up shortfalls in other areas of an EA/LAs business? That Ts should pay ever increasing admin fees because home-owners won't sell their properties for less than they believe they are worth?Do keep digging

Jowo wrote:

If tenants are successful in their wish to have only the landlord pay expenses associated with the let, then this could be counterproductive - the landlords are either going to withdraw from renting property because the rental yield doesn't make it worthwhile or they will simply incorporate the charge in the rent to the tenants.

:rolleyes:You still just don't see it Jowo - the LL is already paying the LA for the work and you are still avoiding the fact that the those fees are tax deductible for the LL. Even if further charges were dropped across to a LL I think it more likely that the majority of LLs would scrutinise more carefully what exactly an LA provides and tell the LAs to either get real or ahem .. foxtrot oscar.

Jowo wrote: »

In areas where there are high numbers of rental properties available and low demand from tenants, market rents are falling and tenants find it easy to negotiate lower rent, as the OP did.

Negotiating a lower rent in such circumstance is a separate issue to the fees issue, not least because it is pretty standard practice for rentals to be put on at a figure that allows for tenant negotiation.

Jowo wrote: »

If the forum is happy with the business acumen of the tenants in successfully negotiating reductions, then the forum can be equally happy with the business acumen of letting agents who are ensuring their businesses thrive in the recession and are in the position to offer accommodation to them in the first place.

:rotfl:Consumer Revenge is the title up at the top. Do we celebrate the fact that the supermarket Wm Morrisons profits are up? Nope. People post about which groceries are on a BOGOF.

Jowo_2

landscaperico wrote: »

Thats all, I'm not trying to be cheap or bring down the big capitalist evil (I quite like capitalism) but I still think there should be rules to make things fair and to stop people being taken for a ride, the only reason why LA charge so much is because people know no better and so they pay it, capitalism at work and more fool them you may say, but screw that. Its unfair unjust and it needs to be addressed.

No, its not ignorance on the part of the tenants, it's market conditions. Any tenant who isn't prepared to pay the fee is usually easily replaced by the agent with other tenants who want that property. When the market deteriorates and it isn't a sellers market (such as this recession) and agencies are subject to more competition and less demand, then it goes more in the tenants favour (hence the rent reductions that tenants trumpet in these forums).

The only ignorance I see is the regular bleat by tenants that 'the agent only spent a few minutes with me, used photocopied documents and made a few phone calls but charged me more than £100' while ignoring the business infrastructure that supported the entire process.

Jowo_2

"firstly you seemed to be suggesting that the fees were justified because they "covered" x, y and z specific to the tenancy ( already charged by the LA to the LL) and you now seem to be saying that it's fine to charge the unsuspecting T a further general sum to cover up shortfalls in other areas of an EA/LAs business?"

Tenants seem to be focussed solely on their immediate interaction with the agent and have total amnesia that in virtually every area of their life, they are charged above cost price for the goods and services they pay for, often quite substantially and it is very rare for the service provider to tell them specifically what part of the invoice is pure profit.

They also have complete amnesia about the infrastructure that got them the tenancy in the first place - apparently, empty properties just drop into the agents lap without any marketing, the first tenant that enquires about it takes the tenancy and never withdraws or fails the checks and the office where they signed the contract, the furniture they sat on, the phone and PC the agent used, the petrol in the car, are donated by charities....

axomoxia

Jowo wrote: »

Much of the concern from the OPs and others apart from the 'double dipping' feature is that the agent doesn't 'deserve' the fee because it is much greater than the time/effort/expense they incur in processing the tenancy.

I work in IT consultancy, usually on a fixed fee basis - For x piece of work I charge £x - I do not have to itemise my invoice on a line by line basis and my customers do not expect this.

My recent plumbers invoice did not split out the hardware and labour costs, nor did my gardener, or the last electrician I used. They merely quoted '£x' to do X work and it was up to me to proceed with it, or not, even though they got to keep a lot of the invoice as pure profit.

Agents are very unpopular but being opaque about the expense and time they spend in doing a particular task and thus their mark-up is very common to many suppliers of goods and services..

Well, my last garage bill listed parts and labour as seperate items. My last electricians bill listed each individual job. The invoice from my conveyancers listed thier fees, and the fees that they paid to third parties seperately. Why can't letting agencies do the same?

Finally, all your anecdotes are purely consumer \ producer business relationships. Can you supply one that shows a producer \ agent \ consumer business relationship? And one that deals with any potential conflict of interests caused by an agent being paid by both parties for services.

Andy

axomoxia

Jowo wrote: »

"firstly you seemed to be suggesting that the fees were justified because they "covered" x, y and z specific to the tenancy ( already charged by the LA to the LL) and you now seem to be saying that it's fine to charge the unsuspecting T a further general sum to cover up shortfalls in other areas of an EA/LAs business?"

Tenants seem to be focussed solely on their immediate interaction with the agent and have total amnesia that in virtually every area of their life, they are charged above cost price for the goods and services they pay for, often quite substantially and it is very rare for the service provider to tell them specifically what part of the invoice is pure profit.

They also have complete amnesia about the infrastructure that got them the tenancy in the first place - apparently, empty properties just drop into the agents lap without any marketing, the first tenant that enquires about it takes the tenancy and never withdraws or fails the checks and the office where they signed the contract, the furniture they sat on, the phone and PC the agent used, the petrol in the car, are donated by charities....

So what is the landlord paying for then? It sounds like the letting agency is acting as an agent for the tenant here - I hope their proffesional indementy insurance covers that....

landscaperico

[QUOTE=Jowo;27234643
They also have complete amnesia about the infrastructure that got them the tenancy in the first place - apparently, empty properties just drop into the agents lap without any marketing, the first tenant that enquires about it takes the tenancy and never withdraws or fails the checks and the office where they signed the contract, the furniture they sat on, the phone and PC the agent used, the petrol in the car, are donated by charities....[/QUOTE]

No we dont have total amnesia, but the LL should paying for these not the T.

We all know that you dont see how much profit is gained on a quote, thats obvious, but when I ask the LA for a breakdown for what I'm paying for I would expect something clear, not wishywashy, £20 for credit check, £10 for petrol etc whatever just some clarification on what my money is going on. I dont think thats too much to ask, and I fully expect every item to have profit incorporated in the price. You'd have thought they'd be ready for people questioning what the money is for.

adg1

landscaperico wrote: »

LL should paying for these not the T......£20 for credit check, £10 for petrol etc

Not every T is going to cost the same in terms of fuel/time etc. Also, would you expect the LL to pay for all the timewaster Ts that pass through an agent, go through to the references stage (which would be free to them in your estate agents) and consequently fail them? I wouldn't as a landlord!

landscaperico

Not every T is going to cost the same in terms of fuel/time etc. Also, would you expect the LL to pay for all the timewaster Ts that pass through an agent, go through to the references stage (which would be free to them in your estate agents) and consequently fail them? I wouldn't as a landlord!


Petrol is a bad example, some and I would say most costs are the same, credit checks, most contracts etc, and no I've said in previous posts as a T myself I dont mind paying for a credit check, but even then I'm not happy about it because this is the buisness your in as a LA you know certain people will fail the checks you know you'll get timewasters, but at the end of it you will get someone that is worth all the effort thats the same in any buisness. But that doesnt justify the extreme cost to the Tenant, things like petrol and everything else should be paid for by the Landlord NOT the Tenant.

But what your also saying is that the Tenant who ends up renting the property is then the person who will have to stump up the cash for all the timewasters. Well thats not right. You want it advertised you pay for it which you are doing, its the LA's that are charging both sides.

Jowo_2

landscaperico wrote: »

No we dont have total amnesia, but the LL should paying for these not the T.

We all know that you dont see how much profit is gained on a quote, thats obvious, but when I ask the LA for a breakdown for what I'm paying for I would expect something clear, not wishywashy, £20 for credit check, £10 for petrol etc whatever just some clarification on what my money is going on. I dont think thats too much to ask, and I fully expect every item to have profit incorporated in the price. You'd have thought they'd be ready for people questioning what the money is for.

So if the previous agent provided you with a £160 invoice for their admin fee composed of the following, you'd have proceeded with the tenancy?

Documentation - £20
Credit check £10
ID check £10
References £10
Electoral check £10
Labour & VAT £100

Jowo_2

landscaperico wrote: »

But what your also saying is that the Tenant who ends up renting the property is then the person who will have to stump up the cash for all the timewasters. Well thats not right. You want it advertised you pay for it which you are doing, its the LA's that are charging both sides.

Yes, if the tenant wants to proceed with the tenancy, then they must pay the admin fees associated with preparing it. As you've discovered, those unwilling to pay the charge cannot expect accommodation from agencies. They act as gate keepers - no payee, no keyee.

You seemed to have been a timewaster with your original preferred flat, viewing it and then withdrawing your interest once you found out that, in common with 99% of agencies (shock, horror), that particular agency charges its tenants a fee to progress past viewings.

It's just as well the agents charge as it filters out those who are serious and committed about moving and have funds in place to do it. Agencies also tend to want proof from property buyers that they have a mortgage in principle to deter timewasters who are browsing properties when they aren't in the position to get a mortgage or want to gawp at properties above their budget. That way, it saves the company time and expenses associated with timewasters, expense they'd rather remove from taking place rather than transferring onto the landlord.