Ban Unfair letting charges from LA?

StudentMoneySaver

Jowo wrote: »

Most tenants are subject to market forces in virtually every aspect of their life so why cushion them against this in the rental market?

Personally, I think there should be some cushion for tenants against 'market forces' in the rental market. People need homes to function in society and having a completely free market in an area this fundamental to a person's existence puts their ontological security at risk.

Ditch_Crawler

I am currently in the process of taking on a rented flat, and I have paid the letting agent to do a credit check etc

Once the tenancy begins, then I shall assume that the agency is being paid by the landlord to manage the tenancy. If the agency asks me at any stage to contribute to the costs of managing the tenancy, which they have contracted with the landlord to do, then I will suggest they renegotiate their contract with the landlord in order to cover their shortfall.

DC

<sebb>

Fire_Fox wrote: »

As you are aware in some cases they are misled or harassed into accepting a fixed term and paying an admin fee for the privilege to someone they have no contract with! In my view that is never acceptable and clearly needs to be legislated against.

Agree with this. A few years ago, before I knew anything about tenants rights, a large national EA told me that the law had been changed and periodic tenancies were no longer allowed. I therefore HAD to sign another 12 month AST or leave. I didnt know any better at the time, so I just signed the contract and of course handed over the £100 admin fee too.

Fire_Fox

Jowo wrote: »

Most tenants are subject to market forces in virtually every aspect of their life so why cushion them against this in the rental market?

They have little say in council tax rates and little influence on energy/telecoms costs other than changing supplier. If the tenant doesn't like the agency fees, find another or rent directly from a landlord.

Normally when you pay for a product or service you have a contract with the organisation that is issuing the levy. In this case there is no contract between letting agent and tenant, the contracts are between landlord and tenant and between landlord and letting agent. Of course you could argue that the landlord IS charging the tenant and simply using his agent as a go-between, but often the landlord is blissfully unaware of the magnitude of the charges claimed from the tenant, and in some cases the letting agents are charging both tenant and landlord!!

I would note that I am not arguing against ALL charges I am arguing against UNFAIR charges as per PoppySarah's OP, the definition of unfair clearly being a tad subjective.

StudentMoneySaver

<sebb> wrote: »

Agree with this. A few years ago, before I knew anything about tenants rights, a large national EA told me that the law had been changed and periodic tenancies were no longer allowed. I therefore HAD to sign another 12 month AST or leave. I didnt know any better at the time, so I just signed the contract and of course handed over the £100 admin fee too.

That's an absolutely appalling way to conduct business. There should be some compulsory and enforceable guidelines and rules of conduct that all LAs and LLs should have to sign up to before operating. It seems a lot of these people prey on ignorance and fear in order to turn a profit. Disgusting.

Jowo_2

StudentMoneySaver wrote: »

Personally, I think there should be some cushion for tenants against 'market forces' in the rental market. People need homes to function in society and having a completely free market in an area this fundamental to a person's existence puts their ontological security at risk.

A free market is what a buyer enters when they buy property - if the market is booming, prices climb and so too does the number of people seeking a property. If the market is weak, prices fall, buyers are scarce. So, too, does the market dictate the % that agents charge, the cost of solictors for the conveyancing, the fees charged by the lender.

Fire_Fox

Jowo wrote: »

A free market is what a buyer enters when they buy property - if the market is booming, prices climb and so too does the number of people seeking a property. If the market is weak, prices fall, buyers are scarce. So, too, does the market dictate the % that agents charge, the cost of solictors for the conveyancing, the fees charged by the lender.

But in the property market the vendor pays all the estate agents fees, as it is his house that is being marketed and he who employed the agents. In the rental market the tenant is expected to pay or contribute to the costs associated with a contract he is not party to (between letting agent and landlord) and for a house he does not own!

clutton_2

FF asks me ""why you think the tenant should bear the costs in any case other than the tenant approaching the letting agent/ landlord for a new fixed term."

because the tenant CHOSE to go to a letting agent rather than to a private landlord individually.....

presumably the tenant is savvy enough to read the LA T&Cs.

a tenant chose to read (or not read) the T&Cs of the contract between letting agent and tenant (and yes there is one, even if not a signed agreement ... tenant asks for a service - find me a house... agent provides service.... tenant pays for service...

Tenants who go to letting agents have the right to expect that agents will conduct certain checks on the landlord, that the LL is complying with the law, can produce documentary evidence to prove so.... If tenants go directly to landlords it is a bit more difficult / possibly confrontational for a tenant to ask these questions directly face to face....

Re renewal fees... if a contract is renewed.. work has been done to get it renewed... so that work needs to be paid for.... i suggest that both LL & T pay and - yes.. many of the high street agents charge landlords JUST AS MUCH as tenanst, if not more.

The problem with being an agent is that the monthly "managing" fees of 10 -12.5 - 15% of rents provide very small income indeed and if you get one tenancy in twenty where you need to do a lot of toing and froing you soon get out of pocket, which is why i have virtually given up agenting for others....

An agent ( in any business) is in a no-win situation - here the agent works for the landlord primarily, and yet, the tenant has also paid the agent for services.... it really is a no-win twice over.....

As others have said... market forces.... if you dont want an agent then try a private landlord and see if you can do it all fee-free... but will you have got as good a landlord at the end of the day... ? 50/50 chance i think - at least an agent will have weeded out the truly scummy landlords for tenants' benefits.

i charge prospective tenants £75 for everything... but i dont cost my time especially highly ....

As regulation around LL&T/lettings increase, LLs will have to find more and more ways to increase rents as their expenses go up and up...

Its the way of the world...

but i do agree that some agents fees are truly astronomical... all i can say is dont use them....

dizziblonde

poppysarah wrote: »

The balance view of the banking overdraft charges were that they were disproportionally unfair.

For most tenants who come on here asking for advice they are being faced with a quite high charge that they've probably not previously been told about.
They're also not given an option to continue on a periodic tenancy - they're just told how much the charge is they've got to pay to carry on living in the same place.

For the most part landlords and tenants don't need the change or the charge - it's purely because letting agents want/need to boost revenues.

It's incredibly hard as a tenant to refuse when you're put into this situation. My old letting agency were masters at this - wouldn't allow any property on their books to go periodic - because that way they wouldn't get a nice renewal fee (I think they charged both parties as well). Now I know some on here view tenants as essentially the scum of the earth, all out to trash properties and deserving of anything thrown at them - sorry guys, but that's the way you come across sometimes - but when you're faced with a charge you didn't anticipate, or the additional costs of an unplanned move/finding a new deposit while waiting for your old one back/a new batch of admin fees etc... you pay up in 99% of cases - especially when up against someone who can blather with jargon and pseudo-legalise and holds the roof over your head hostage.

Now I know we should all have savings to cover these deposits/charges etc... but people renting often aren't the most stable of incomes etc - and not everyone has that luxury.

It's all well and good saying "well don't go to a letting agent"... I'm currently looking for somewhere new to rent (finally got sick of the LL dragging his feet over everything and anything here). I'd dearly love to avoid letting agencies if I could - there's nothing out there - was a sum total of three places to rent in the local paper last week... all either DSS bedsits or completely the wrong side of town for our work. If letting agencies have a stranglehold on an area - you don't really have much choice but to go through them - and pay their charges. I don't begrudge reasonable admin charges, inventory ones etc (although I do think they're on a cushy number billing both sides for drawing up the inventory and taking the piddle somewhat)... but I do really really get annoyed at the tenancy renewal ones - especially when, like in my old place's case - the LL didn't want fixed term tenants for any reason - he just wanted steady people in there to keep the rent coming in. I was younger then, less assertive and paid up dutifully each time - assumed they were a natural part of renting - then moved here and went onto a periodic and realized they weren't.

clutton_2

""but when you're faced with a charge you didn't anticipate, or the additional costs of an unplanned move/finding a new deposit while waiting for your old one back/a new batch of admin fees etc... "

i have been wondering when someone would moan about the underlined bit.....

tenants cannot have it both ways.... you cannot ask for/use a deposit scheme and get instant repayal.......... using a scheme (using third parties) always slows up things... and its NOT the landlords faults that tenants now have to wait even longer to get their money back than prior to Tenancy Deposit Scheme days........

Mydeposits say that only 6% of deposits are the subject of arbitration, so its quite a low figure ... hard if its your money i guess, but wouldn't you rather have a guaranteed slower return of your monies, rather than no return at all and have to take your ex landlord to court......