Ban Unfair letting charges from LA?

franklee

clutton wrote: »

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.....

I think most tenants choose the property they want to live in bearing in mind the rent, the agent is an afterthought. I think that's a mistake. In many areas the worse agents have the most and best properties available (probably cos they can't keep tenants happy so have high turnover).

clutton wrote: »

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

We have enough OPs on here who say the renewal fee wasn't in the paperwork and they only become aware of it at renewal time.

clutton wrote: »

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....

You mean like check for consent to let? Only I get the impression agents don't check that even if ARLA guidelines say they should.

clutton wrote: »

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.

Yet often the landlord doesn't know the tenant is being charged for renewals too and vice versa.

I think it's the landlord who should be more picky which agent he chooses. The landlord has a free choice which agent to use, the tenant if he wants a particular house doesn't. Odd how I see no mention of the landlord being wrong to choose the agent who costs him less up front regardless of how the tenant is treated or how much loss of income that in turn causes the landlord.

clutton_2

""Odd how I see no mention of the landlord being wrong to choose the agent who costs him less up front regardless of how the tenant is treated ""


landlords run a business - they are not philanthropists... tenants are just as able as landlords to ask searching questions of letting agents before agreeing to use them ....

if a tenancy renewal fee is not mentioned in the tenant's pack / T&Cs / whatever.... - then DONT PAY IT....


"" In many areas the worse agents have the most and best properties available""

this is the direct opposite of my experience... good landlords use good agents who have low turnover .. ... hence LLs dont have keep on paying another "tenant find fee" every 6 months....

franklee

clutton wrote: »

""Odd how I see no mention of the landlord being wrong to choose the agent who costs him less up front regardless of how the tenant is treated ""


landlords run a business - they are not philanthropists... tenants are just as able as landlords to ask searching questions of letting agents before agreeing to use them ....

If an agent treats a tenant badly e.g. by not allowing a periodic tenancy due to their fees, losing the LL a good tenant then the LL is out of pocket too due to voids and yet more fees. So a LL doesn't need to be a philanthropist to be concerned about how the agent will treat the tenant - it's good business sense - that a lot of landlords who use agents just don't consider.

So I make the point a landlord should consider how the agent will treat the tenant if he wants to be keeping the tenant and getting in the rent. I'm quite amazed this is a contentious point, it seems obvious to me, yet clearly often missed.

clutton wrote: »

"" In many areas the worse agents have the most and best properties available""

this is the direct opposite of my experience... good landlords use good agents who have low turnover .. ... hence LLs dont have keep on paying another "tenant find fee" every 6 months....

The worst agents round here have many nice looking properties available to rent because a. They hook in more landlords by offering low fees to the LL and piling charges on the tenant. b. They can't keep tenants so the properties become vacant again more quickly (high turnover of tenants means the property is back on the market more). c. Savvy tenants won't use that agent regardless of how shiny the property looks. Good agents round here OTOH have the better properties flying off the shelf and remaining occupied and so at any one time have less properties available to rent. Odd you write my comment is the direct opposite of your experience and then go on to agree the good agents have low turnover and high occupancy and thus less properties available to rent which was my point.

franklee

clutton wrote: »

if a tenancy renewal fee is not mentioned in the tenant's pack / T&Cs / whatever.... - then DONT PAY IT....

Here's a recent couple of threads showing the problems tenants face with refusing to pay renewal fees:

1. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2358699

karinski wrote: »

The fee wasn't in any written terms anywhere no;

2. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2038469

clutton_2

what you absolutely seem to forget franklee is that the agent works for the LL - its up to the LL whether or not to insist or not that at the end of the fixed term it stays statutory or goes onto another fixed term.... its not the agent that should be calling the shots but the LL

if tenants are not au fait with their own rights such that they dont know they cannot be forced from statutory onto a new fixed - then maybe they should do some more reading.....

lynzpower

clutton wrote: »

what you absolutely seem to forget franklee is that the agent works for the LL - its up to the LL whether or not to insist or not that at the end of the fixed term it stays statutory or goes onto another fixed term.... its not the agent that should be calling the shots but the LL

if tenants are not au fait with their own rights such that they dont know they cannot be forced from statutory onto a new fixed - then maybe they should do some more reading.....

But we know that LAs DO call the shots, as we see it time and again as they want to ramp thier fees to LL and tenant.

but at the end of the AST fixed term, if the LL "wants out" dont they need to issue NTQ under the regs. Dont they need to ask for 2 months notice for the tenant to leave?

Or do I have that wrong? I was of the understanding that until the tenant recieves notice to leave the property, then the LL- by absense of a presence- is happy for them to stay.


*confused*

dizziblonde

clutton wrote: »

""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.....

Now how did I know that you'd jump down my throat putting it from the tenant's point of view? You're exactly the sort of landlord who seems to actively hate and resent tenants to be honest.

All I was saying (and it was NOT a moan) was that essentially if you're in rented acommodation you can well be locked in and be a captive audience unless you've been planning and budgeting for a move for a while. You DO require essentially to have two deposit's worth of spare cash around in order to make a move - unless you've got obliging family or whatever that you can borrow from. If you're slightly less savvy - and don't realize that your LA is one of these who won't allow tenancies to go periodic - and you get the "to renew your tenancy please send a cheque for £150 to us by X date" form through the post - and you're faced with the alternative of having to find your month's rent in advance, plus new deposit while your old one is in the system - you pay up and stay put.

THAT is what I'm getting at. My old LA would never allow a place to go periodic - I stayed in my old flat four and a half years and was never allowed to go onto a rolling tenancy - had to pay out renewal fees (which during the time I was there increased steadily from £45 for the flat, to £75 a person - so £150) and they charged the LL for this as well. I paid up because, like many - I wasn't in the position to be able to find the initial costs to move elsewhere, and I believed this was the norm. Plus the LL was bang-on in terms of repairing stuff and caring about the state the property was in and doing the best by his tenants - which was why I stayed for so long.

It was only when I rang up toward the end of the fixed-term on my current place, to try to find out the LL's intentions (he was renting because he can't sell - and he never will until he sorts the shonky DIY and world's most stupid bathroom out tbh - needed to check if he was going to have another stab at putting this place on the market or just sit on the house rented) and asked about if I was going to be charged to renew - that the LA laughed and said "no we don't rip you off like that here" that I realized just how cruddy the practice was.

Unfortunately if you're the tenant - you DO tend to have minimal actual choice. The house you want is up with a certain agent - you're stuck. There are huge swathes of territory where 90% of the market is up with one agent - again, you're pretty limited in your choices. There isn't much that goes up for rent outside of agency control around here at all - like I say - four properties the other week in the paper.

But what do I know - I'm just an evil tenant and the scum of the earth. Quite how we get labelled as such when most of us just want to pay our rent, be left alone and get stuff fixed when it breaks - I don't know - but according to some on here - that's unreasonable. Heck - I suppose the light that we have that has a wiring fault (we've checked bulbs, fuses and obvious stuff) is a fault "caused by the tenant's lifestyle" and me mentioning on our next inspection that "look there've been a few lumps of the wood trim aorund the extension roofline coming away - roof's not leaking or anything but he probably needs to know about it so his property doesn't get damaged" is probably me being an evil moneygrabbing tenant I guess.

gotnodosh

My LA forgot to renew my tenancy about 18 months ago....I kept quiet and went on periodic, which suits me fine. I have no intention to move any time soon. They keep sending me letters about renewing my tenancy. Why would I want to, I am on periodic? Funny enough, the last time I renewed my tenancy, it was with a break clause - two months for the LL, one month for me - isn't that what I got on a periodic????? So when they sent me letters I asked them why should I sign for something I already got, due to their admin error by not renewing it? I refused to pay them and I will continue to do so. Sorry but it's a money spinner for the LA.

poppy10_2

My letting agent (a large firm, not a cowboy operation) kept sending me invoices for a 'renewal fee' to renew my tenancy, even though I had stated several times that I would just be moving on to a periodic tenancy. They then tried to claim that there was a 'processing fee' for me to go on to a periodic tenancy and wanted to charge me £90 for this. When I told them there was no way I was going to pay they said they would deduct the fee from my deposit. Only when I threatened to fight them on this with the deposit protection scheme did they back down.

There are loads of unscrupulous letting agents out there, using bullying and scare tactics to collect unreasonable fees. I knew my rights so I could stand up for myself, but plenty of other people would have just paid up. There should be legislation to stop this sort of thing happening.

poppysarah

Ditch_Crawler wrote: »

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

I think this is a valid point - LA are taking a regular fee for "managing the property" so why should they then need extra money?

And the lack of choice of going on a periodic as displayed in many of the complaints on this forum is a major problem.

But why would a letting agent want to say "it's £50 admin if you want a new tenancy, or free to continue on a periodic one"?
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.