Ban Unfair letting charges from LA?

poppy10_2

poppysarah wrote: »

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"?

Because that's the law? It's a statutory right to go onto a periodic tenancy at the end of the contract period, you don't need to pay for the privilege.

Imp

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.....

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....

My big problem with these fees, is that if they were valid, they would introduce a conflict of interest for the agent. The letting agent should not be engaged by both parties to an agreement. By introducing Ts&cs and charging fees, they are forming a contract with the tenant. They are already acting as the agent for the landlord, so they are acting for both sides and potentially opening themselves up to a whole can of worms. All we need is one test case to demonstrate this and the idea of agents charging fees to tenants will disappear.

ET1976

I don't see why letting agents should charge ANY fees to tenants.

I think all costs should be borne by the LL.

Of course, this would result in LL's putting up rents to cover the extra costs they incur, so the tenant will be spending at least some of the money either way, but I think LL's would be in a stronger position to spot and refuse ridiculous agency charges, or would self-manage more, so agent bad practises would (hopefully) start to disappear.

I haven't actually put much thought into this so perhaps there is a flaw in my plan which someone will point out...

lynzpower

ET1976 wrote: »

I don't see why letting agents should charge ANY fees to tenants.

I think all costs should be borne by the LL.

Of course, this would result in LL's putting up rents to cover the extra costs they incur, so the tenant will be spending at least some of the money either way, but I think LL's would be in a stronger position to spot and refuse ridiculous agency charges, or would self-manage more, so agent bad practises would (hopefully) start to disappear.

I haven't actually put much thought into this so perhaps there is a flaw in my plan which someone will point out...

the problem is the cartel approach- if one charges they all do. If you dont like your current LA then you could go to the one over the road ( indeed if there is even any choice in your area) but they will charge the same

You might find the odd one that doesnt charge extortionate fees - London seems to be out of control ( 200 for credit checking for example) IIRC the last time I rented we paid about 350 in upfront "charges" including an admin charge for signing the contract and photocopying it and handing us a copy.

ET1976

but if it was illegal to charge tenants, no LA would be able to charge.

lynzpower

ET1976 wrote: »

but if it was illegal to charge tenants, no LA would be able to charge.

Completely agree!

ET1976

btw, I think tenants sometimes underestimate the costs of actually administering a tenancy. In order to produce the documentation, do all the checks etc you have to pay for office accommodation, staff, stationery, computer equipment, telephone line, internet access, etc, so it's not just the simple cost of a piece of paper with some printing on it.

I'm not defending unscrupulous charges, just saying that I think LL's should be charged with the (fair) cost of providing the agent's services.

I speak as a LL who self-manages, charges below market rent and doesn't charge tenants anything for credit checks, admin etc (I am not criticising LL's who do - of course it's reasonable to reclaim these costs, but I personally don't as I only have 1 property and don't make my living from it).

prudryden

My large franchised London estate agent doesn't charge tenants for renewals. Any tenant who has to pay a renewal charge should change agents.

franklee

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.....

Not at all, I know full well that the agent works for the landlord and is chosen by the landlord. Therefore I'm suggesting the landlord should look more closely at how the agent operates and then if he chooses an agent that acts fairly towards the tenants as well he gets a happy long staying tenant - which is the aim is it not?

At the end of the day a tenant may not have that much choice which agent to use as he chooses primarily on the property. It is very hard when facing being homelessness to by-pass a good looking property because of the agent. I've done it myself as I know what to look for in an agent and I'm all for tenants reading up on their rights but the fact remains the agent is the landlord's choice in the first place.

It's the LL who has the most ability to bypass the bad agents yet I see little mention of the landlord needing to read up and understand these issues. Half the time I'd bet the LL just wants a good paying tenant and couldn't care less if that's fixed or periodic so it is the agent pushing for the renewal to get the fees. As the LL has to pay the renewal fee too he probably would prefer periodic anyway if he knew it was an option.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

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....

- at least an agent will have weeded out the truly scummy landlords for tenants' benefits.

What type of landlord would be a "scummy landlord" in your opinion, clutton?