Ban Unfair letting charges from LA?

MissMoneypenny

<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 what a neighbour was recently told by her letting agent too. The LA said it was all to do with the deposit scheme and that's why periodic tenancies were not allowed now.:eek:

clutton_2

Miss MP asks what is a scummy landlord ~?

i'm sure you dont need me to tell you - we have both been using these boards for long enough to know.... but - since you ask

one who (in no particular order)

does not use a deposit scheme
does not have an EPC
does not have a LGSC
does not have permission to let
does not have BLT insurance
does not do repairs in a timely fashion
does not pay their mortgage
enters without permission
charges unreasonable fees to tenants
cannot be contacted
does not know their legal responsibilities
treats tenants with disrespect
does not comply with H&SAW legislation


etc

etc

What was the point of your question ?


Miss MP also says

""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?

Yes - unless a Section 21 has been issued earlier

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

What was the point of your question ?

I was asking as you said you weed out the scummy landlords for tenants. Yet you have already told us before, that you don't check that a landlord has received Consent to Let. Now you tell us that a "scummy landlord" won't have permission to let. Does that mean you are now checking for consent to let from landlords?
//she said hopefully//

clutton wrote: »

Miss MP also says

""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?

Yes - unless a Section 21 has been issued earlier

It wasn't me that asked that.

clutton_2

dizzieblonde says ""You're exactly the sort of landlord who seems to actively hate and resent tenants to be honest.""

i am no such thing... i do not hate my tenants, nor do i resent them, they are my customers and they are looking after my assets....

i treat them with respect, and in the main, they treat me with respect also...

you have no evidence to show that i hate my tenants.... you are simply speculating...

i, and many other landlords who regularly post on here, come here to help posting-tenants who ARE being abused by scummy landlords

Occasionally we have "full and frank discussions" about the battle lines of Landlord v tenant.. and i doubt that we will ever agree... the entrenched historic viewpoints of both sides will almost certainly never be moved... but we have to learn to live with each other and compromise somewhere along the line

In this thread - letting agents are the "men in the middle" who neither landlord nor tenant like..

We are both being ripped of.....

I bought a house in a new area 2 years back, and researched local LAs. I received the T&Cs of a national LA and once i had added up all the costs to be incurred - i worked out that i would have had to pay out £500 a year MORE than my rental income in LA fees alone... let alone insurance, repairs, LGSC, tax, admin. etc etc . Needless to say i did not bother using them....

As someone said earlier a Letting agent is in direct conflict with him/her/self in their attempt to represent opposing parties in the same dispute.....

probably this is why they are sooooo hated - as by definition - they will never "get it right" - thats why i have all but given up my lettings business... as an agent you get it in the neck from both tenant and landlord


I dont know what the answer it.. - but there is no need for personal abuse......

clutton_2

Miss MP

""Yet you have already told us before, that you don't check that a landlord has received Consent to Let""

where did i say that ?

i only manage for people i know - so i can happily ask them for sight of all the documents i need to see...

i have refused several requests over the years to manage from folks i did not want to work with..

franklee

clutton wrote: »

Miss MP

""Yet you have already told us before, that you don't check that a landlord has received Consent to Let""

where did i say that ?

i only manage for people i know - so i can happily ask them for sight of all the documents i need to see...

i have refused several requests over the years to manage from folks i did not want to work with..

Neatly sidestepped, so we do not know if you checked for consent to let or not when you acted as an agent, or what you do about any lack of consent your client landlords may have.

Wasn't answered before either:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28439025&postcount=51
Which gives the impression you don't check as if you do why not just say?

OTOH you do know landlords who don't get consent for the sake of cheaper mortgage premiums:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23654907&postcount=23

clutton_2

""OTOH you do know landlords who don't get consent for the sake of cheaper mortgage premiums"

this is beneath you Franklee - you normally argue very cogently...

OTOH i have visited someone in prison accused of murder... doesn't make me a murderer...

tbs624

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..

Many LLs use an LA because they assume that an LA will fill in the gaps in their own housing law knowledge but the LA, of course, has a vested interest in failing to discuss the option of a Stat Periodic agreement with the LL who has contracted them.

clutton wrote: »

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.....

Of course they can be forced, via a S21 notice. Yes, a LL would be daft to lose a "good" tenant and take on a new
unknown instead but it still happens, if an LA advises the LL that it would be better to have someone new on a Fixed Term than continue with the current tenant who is presented as "being difficult" because they aren't willing to sign up for a further Fixed Term and pay a fat fee.

Clutton, you make great play on the T having "choices" but the LL too has choices:s/he can insist that no charges are levied on the T. The fact remains that the LL can set down their own LA fees on his/her tax return as a bonafide "professional" expense: a T cannot.

My own view is that the fees charged to tenants haven risen exponentially since the crash in the property market - it's EAs/LAs making up the shortfall in their sales profits and it stinks.

There needs to be a clear delineation on just who the LAs are working for and who should be responsible for paying their fees.

Related article in the Guardian recently - see here

BadgerFace_2

Not all LA's are that bad. Up here in Scotland, many LA's around here don't charge a fee at all to the tenant and those that do are around £25 for a credit check...

London sounds terrible!

PasturesNew

For those people who are forced to move about (job loss), or required to move out often at the LL's request (selling up), these fees can add up to a hefty sum, perhaps a month's salary per year.

This is not a small amount for low earners.