Management Inspection?

rosysparkle

Doozergirl wrote:

In which case rosysparkle, I think I might refuse on this occassion and invite them to inspect at 6 months instead. But can I really do this?

Of course you can. You are entitled to quiet enjoyment and can refuse access if you wish.

prudryden

Doozer,
This all sounds a bit OTT. I think I would start a special diary now, you never know what is coming next.

Rosy,
Out of interest, under what rules, regulations, law etc. do Letting Agents have a responsibility to conduct investigations into whether a LL has permission from another commercial company for letting his property? This has come up before, and, I for one, would like to put it to bed. Do managing agents work under different rules than letting agents?
Many thanks
Pru

rosysparkle

prudryden wrote:

Rosy,
Out of interest, under what rules, regulations, law etc. do Letting Agents have a responsibility to conduct investigations into whether a LL has permission from another commercial company for letting his property? This has come up before, and, I for one, would like to put it to bed. Do managing agents work under different rules than letting agents?
Many thanks
Pru

As I said above that we ask the landlord if they have consent to let. We tell them that they need to have consent to let. We ask them to show us proof, but if they don't, we can't make any investigations. If we suspect a landlord of lying to us, we cannot investigate; as you will be aware we cannot access any third party data. We are as bound by the law on data protection as anyone else.

But if we suspect that a landlord doesn't have consent to let, we may disinstruct ourselves from managing their property.

I don't know what regulatory framework a managing agent (if by that you mean estate management) works under, we don't do that kind of work. We are letting agents, we manage properties for landlords. Is that what you mean?

My posts are my opinion only, and from the benefit of 10 years working for a letting agent. Nobody should take the word of an anonymous stranger on the internet as being accurate without further research; anyone can misunderstand the question or the answer, or get things wrong albeit with the best of intentions.

hayleyc_2

Just wanted to say I can empathise with your situation. My sister rented a house from landlords who seemed fine to start with. However, like yours they lived nearby and were in contact with the neighbours so my sister always felt as though they were being watched. There were a couple of times when the landlords mentioned things that the neighbours had told them (Eg telling them my sister had 'loads of rabbits' when she had 2 which the landlord already knew about!). The landlords, like yours, didn't re-direct their post for ages and they left loads of stuff behind and turned up unannounced to get it.

I've also had times when I was living in rented accommodation when I've really resented the intrusion of inspections and things like that. I appreciate that they want to make sure you're not destroying the place but some of the petty things our letting agents used to moan about!! As far as I'm concerned as long as tenants pay their rent and at the end of the tenancy leave the property in the same condition as it was when they move in, they should be left alone.

Hayley

scorpio_princess

I rent my flat through a lettings agency, but even though I've been there for 2 months now, i've not heard a thing from them. They've not asked to inspect the place, or contacted me to see how things are going (which I kind of thought they would do) - is this normal? I mean, how soon after moving in would you expect to have an inspection?

My LAs do seem very laid back compared to some - they obviously did credit checks on me, plus a employers reference (who happens to be my parents, but that didn't worry them!) and a personal reference, but I was a bit surprised that they gave me a blank inventory to fill in myself when I first moved in! I was completely honest on it, but imagine if I wasn't - I could have written that there were stains all over the carpet, hooks in the wall etc and they would be none the wiser! Nobody came with me to the flat - I signed the AST in their office and took the keys there. I can't complain about their service though, because I had a problem with the boiler (although that's no surprise because no one showed me how to start the heating) 2 days after moving in and they sent someone out quite quickly.

I wouldn't have a problem with inspections per se - in fact, I actually want them to see how well i'm looking after the place! But I would draw the line at what seems like constant intrusions. That place is your home Doozer, not the landlords kids', or the LAs -i'd say to them 'you can see from previous inspections that i'm not wrecking the place - is an inspection any more than twice a year really necessary?'
Also, I feel for you if you feel like you're being watched - I have a friend who lived in an old country hall that had been converted into flats, and the landlord and his wife lived within the Hall soemwhere. At first she felt quite safe and protected, because the wife was a real mother hen - making sure people were ok, especially the single females, bringing round baked goods etc, but after a while she started to feel a bit suffocated - especially after one of her male friends was quizzed in the hallway about his 'involvement' with my friend! In the end she moved out - she couldn't stand being treated like a child, and felt like she couldn't have friends or boyfriends round in case the LL wife disapproved - crazy!

Good luck in whatever you decide to do about it

prudryden

rosysparkle wrote:

As I said above that we ask the landlord if they have consent to let. We tell them that they need to have consent to let. We ask them to show us proof, but if they don't, we can't make any investigations. If we suspect a landlord of lying to us, we cannot investigate; as you will be aware we cannot access any third party data. We are as bound by the law on data protection as anyone else.

But if we suspect that a landlord doesn't have consent to let, we may disinstruct ourselves from managing their property.

I don't know what regulatory framework a managing agent (if by that you mean estate management) works under, we don't do that kind of work. We are letting agents, we manage properties for landlords. Is that what you mean?

My posts are my opinion only, and from the benefit of 10 years working for a letting agent. Nobody should take the word of an anonymous stranger on the internet as being accurate without further research; anyone can misunderstand the question or the answer, or get things wrong albeit with the best of intentions.

Thanks Rosy,
Yes, I meant Letting Agents who may also manage some of their lets, as opposed to just finding tenants.
RE: Investigations - I agree, that was not an appropriate term to use.
So the question is: Why would you ask the LL whether he has permission to let from a commercial lender? And, if he doesn't show proof that he does, why would you not accept his business? Would the Letting Agent be held responsible by anyone for not finding out?
Many thanks again

franklee

As a tenant renting from two agents recently I've had quarterly inspections with both agents but in all cases a specific appointment has been made at a time to suit me. I liked the first agent anyway to it was more a friendly chat and gave me a chance to point out unfixed repairs (again). The second agent is more formal so it's an bit of an awkward look round. The visits aren't necessary anymore IMO, they know me by now, but I guess they have promised to do them as part of the service they provide to the landlord.

As for the landlord having consent to let from his mortgage provider, rosysparkle has it right. The consent does matter as it will affect what happens should the property be repossessed. If the mortgage provider has not consented to the tenancy then they will ignore the tenant meaning that the tenant will be booted out with very little notice. If the mortgage provider has consented to the tenancy then they should honour the tenancy agreement for giving notice to the tenant to leave.

This came up on money box and the advice was for the tenant to check the consent has been given. The transcript is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/money_box/transcripts/06_11_13.txt

It's the first question from Larry, it's best to read the whole question but here are snippets of the answers:


SMITH: Well if you want to check in advance, it’s very easy to check with the Land Registry. I believe it costs about £2. You can do it online and find out if there is a mortgage and then perhaps get a letter from the lender saying that they’ve given consent.

....SNIP....

SMITH: Yes, possession’s been granted. What happens after the possession order is granted, there’s 28 days for relief from forfeiture. That gives the landlord 28 days to pay all the rent arrears and his legal costs. After that, a court bailiff is appointed to evict the tenant. If he’s got a date from the court bailiff, which it appears in this case is a fact, then if he does not move out before that date, he will go home that night and the locks will have been changed and he will have trouble getting all of his possessions out of the house.

....SNIP....

SMITH: It’s very draconian and I think if tenants realised that, they’d probably take more checks before they took a property on.

I am gald to hear that rosysparkle would dis-instruct a landlord who does not have consent, that's what they say on money box too.

As rosysparkle already said it is obvious if a letter is from a mortgagee company. I wrote to the mortgage company to tell them I was a tenant when I thought the landlord had not declared it and got a reply saying they would investigate.

rosysparkle

prudryden wrote:

Thanks Rosy,
Yes, I meant Letting Agents who may also manage some of their lets, as opposed to just finding tenants.
RE: Investigations - I agree, that was not an appropriate term to use.
So the question is: Why would you ask the LL whether he has permission to let from a commercial lender? And, if he doesn't show proof that he does, why would you not accept his business? Would the Letting Agent be held responsible by anyone for not finding out?
Many thanks again

Why do we ask? Because a landlord needs consent from their mortgage provider and not all landlords know this. If we can stop problems (such as the scenario you described upthread about a house being repossessed and a T being evicted) before they happen, then that's better for us, better for the landlord, and better for the tenant.

Would we not accept the business without proof of consent-to-let? That would be a case-by-case decision. As I said before, we can't carry out our own investigation so we have to rely on the landlord's word. I doubt very much that we would disinstruct if the only reason was that we didn't have proof of consent, we'd work with the landlord to ensure he understood his obligations, and try and get proof, but it would be a contributing factor if there were other reasons. About two years ago, we disinstructed ourselves from a particular landlord and one of the reasons we had was lack of proof of consent-to-let, but that wasn't the main or the only reason. The landlord's refusal to replace a non-functioning boiler and his abuse towards a member of staff who had arranged a gas check (he didn't want to have one done or pay for it) were also factors in our decision.

In my experience, someone who is going to be a problem for us (be that a landlord or tenant) is likely to have more reasons than one for us to be wary.

Would the agent be held responsible? If they have asked the question and been told yes, and given that they can't make investigations, then they can show that they have exercised due diligence. Our agency terms and conditions contain a clause that the landlord must have consent from his mortgage provider.

However, an agent who fails to ask could, in theory, be held partly responsible if a tenant is evicted by mortgagees in possession. Whether a claim against the agent would succeed is a different matter, as it would be the landlord who had breached the agreement.

silvercar

I think the crucial sentence from the Moneybox interview is this:

DUGGLEBY: We must bring this to an end. But the other final thing, I
suppose, is once that’s happened then any tenancy – short-hold or short tenancy or anything
– is null and void automatically. The courts presumably, that is a done deal?

the answer was "yes".

All very well checking land registry to see if the landlord has a mortgage, it won't tell you if it is a BTL mortgage or a residential one. The risk to the tenant in the event of a repossession is virtually identical. lender goes to court and secures a 28 day possession order. end of.

just to inject some realism - repossessions are rare compared to the number of mortgages in the UK.

franklee

silvercar wrote:

All very well checking land registry to see if the landlord has a mortgage, it won't tell you if it is a BTL mortgage or a residential one.

Eh? No one said it would. Looking at the land registry gives you the name of the lender who you then contact to ASK if there is consent:


SMITH: Well if you want to check in advance, it’s very easy to check with the Land Registry. I believe it costs about £2. You can do it online and find out if there is a mortgage and then perhaps get a letter from the lender saying that they’ve given consent.

silvercar wrote:

The risk to the tenant in the event of a repossession is virtually identical. lender goes to court and secures a 28 day possession order. end of.

If the lender has given consent they should honour the notice in the agreement if the tenant then pays rent to them and not the landlord. If they haven't given consent they won't and just as in Larry's situation the agreement is null & void so he has to move out pronto.

silvercar wrote:

just to inject some realism - repossessions are rare compared to the number of mortgages in the UK.

The numbers are rising but why should the numbers matter? I take it you are insured against fire, well there is little chance you will have one but better to be safe... Frankly with rising interest rates and so many recent landlords who have brought high I think this will become more of an issue, it's already coming up on landlordzone more than it used to.

Besides who wants to deal with a landlord committing fraud, they should just obtain the consent, it's not a big deal.