Letting agent charging for new agreement - some advice

Fire_Fox

Ditch_Crawler wrote: »

If your contract is due for renewal, then say that you do not wish to renew. Unless she has some totally unreasonable contract with them, your landlady can then ask the agency not to relet the property because she has decided to 'go private'. If the two of you get on really well, you might even get your deposit back, because the agency will have to repay it (if the landlady is happy with the condition of the place) and hopefully she would not ask you to pay it again.

Even if she has to pay some kind of 3 month penalty for withdrawing from the agency, she will soon recoup it, if you stay in the property for a significant period of time, because she will have saved her agency charges.

Ditch

What you are suggesting sounds dangerously like the tenant pretends to move out in order to cancel the agreement between the landlord and agency? If so that is simply not legal and letting agencies will have come across the scam before. The deposit will not be repaid unless the agency are holding it, if it is with a deposit protection scheme it should be in both the landlord and tenants names anyway.

Ditch_Crawler

Fire_Fox wrote: »

What you are suggesting sounds dangerously like the tenant pretends to move out in order to cancel the agreement between the landlord and agency? If so that is simply not legal and letting agencies will have come across the scam before. The deposit will not be repaid unless the agency are holding it, if it is with a deposit protection scheme it should be in both the landlord and tenants names anyway.

Like I say, if both landlord/landlady and tenant are happy with each other, and can foresee a longterm future, then even if there is some kind of penalty to be paid to the agency, then maybe it is worth paying. Surely no contract can tie in a landlord/landlady for ever?

boliston

Ditch_Crawler wrote: »

Do I hear a voice of experience?

I once let a flat out to a friend and I remember decidedly awkward asking for more rent when the anniversary came around.

What I kept having to remind myself was that if I froze the rent I would effectively be giving him a reduction in real terms as my other costs such as service charges and maintenance costs etc will likely have risen with inflation.

I think in future I'd always put it with an agent to "distance" myself from the tenant.

Ditch_Crawler

boliston wrote: »

I once let a flat out to a friend and I remember decidedly awkward asking for more rent when the anniversary came around.

What I kept having to remind myself was that if I froze the rent I would effectively be giving him a reduction in real terms as my other costs such as service charges and maintenance costs etc will likely have risen with inflation.

I think in future I'd always put it with an agent to "distance" myself from the tenant.

A factor to consider is that, until recently, any shortfall on the rental income side would be compensated by a perpetual increase in the market value of the original investment.

How much that has changed, remains to be seen...

DC

Owain_Moneysaver

These fees are in addition to the normal agent's fees I assume ...

I smell rip off.

And an agent charging fees to both landlord and tenant may be in conflict of interest, as they should only be representing one party (their client).

Owain_Moneysaver

boliston wrote: »

What I kept having to remind myself was that if I froze the rent I would effectively be giving him a reduction in real terms as my other costs such as service charges and maintenance costs etc will likely have risen with inflation.

On the other hand it can be false economy to put the rent up, if that results in the tenant leaving and you have a void period.

boliston

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

On the other hand it can be false economy to put the rent up, if that results in the tenant leaving and you have a void period.

I doubt a standard RPI linked increase would make a tenant move unless the property was already overpriced, as the chances are that other similar lets would have gone up in the meantime, and the tenant will also have moving costs to take into consideration.

Ditch_Crawler

boliston wrote: »

I doubt a standard RPI linked increase would make a tenant move

That's a gamble which a landlord takes every time. The paradox is that a penniless ne'er-do-well will cause a landlord lots more problems, but will have no choice but to accept a rent increase because of shortage of funds to finance a move. A better quality of tenant is more likely to have the option to turn down a rent increase, and move elsewhere.

D.