Unfair rental administration fees...

Tiglet

Topsy1 wrote: »

Ummm... at the risk of getting my head bitten off,

Chomp, chomp, chomp...:D

can I ask whether you would write to the LL to ask whether they wanted to renew, then write to the tenant to ask the same, chase both parties up a couple of times when neither get round to replying, draft the renewal agreement, printing off three copies, signing on behalf of the LL, postage in sending them out, and maybe chasing the tenant to get signed copy back.. Then bearing in mind paper, envelopes, printer ink, phone costs, office costs - let alone the hourly rate of the person doing all this admin..

Maybe its just me, but I can't see many people doing all of this for free. It doesn't make economic sense.

And yes, I am a former letting agent.

What would happen if you didn't do all of this?

The tenant could stay put (unless they wanted to leave)
The landlord could keep their tenant (unless they wanted rid of them)
Nobody would have to pay anybody any money
Everybody would be happy (except the poor agent who would would have no excuse to charge any more than their usual fees)

olly300

Tiglet wrote: »

What would happen if you didn't do all of this?

The tenant could stay put (unless they wanted to leave)
The landlord could keep their tenant (unless they wanted rid of them)
Nobody would have to pay anybody any money
Everybody would be happy (except the poor agent who would would have no excuse to charge any more than their usual fees)

Yes and both the landlord and tenant would be in a legally binding contract.

Wings

Eviction is made easier where a section 21 is issued, and a section 21 is issued against a fixed term Shorthold Housing Agreement, hence the reason why the letting/estate agent wants to issue the tenant with a new 6 months tenancy agreement.

In practice a 6 months fix tenancy agreement allows the tenant to vacate the premises at the end of the 6 months, thereby having no need to give the landlord/letting agents the legislated 1 months notice. If I were in the tenant's position I would refuse in writing to pay the letting agent's draconian fee for issuing a new tenancy agreement, the worse that the letting agent could do would be to give the tenant the legislated 2 months notice.

Tiglet

Wings wrote: »

Eviction is made easier where a section 21 is issued, and a section 21 is issued against a fixed term Shorthold Housing Agreement, hence the reason why the letting/estate agent wants to issue the tenant with a new 6 months tenancy agreement.

It always seems to be the agents who are in the habit of issuing a s21 notice at the start of a tenancy. The reason they give is that they then have proof that it has been issued, and that it helps to get out problem tenants. The real reason is that it allows them to charge fees for issuing a new set of paperwork every six months.

There is a thread here in which we discussed the ins and outs of issuing a s21 notice at the start of a tenancy.

Guy_Montag

real1314 wrote: »

hmm, I think we should have a poll: "which are more unscrupulous, private landlords or letting agents?"

I'm sure both camps try it on with deposits, but surely only LAs are imaginitive enough to come up with so many "standard fees"?

Letting agents!!

littlesaint

The amount of fees for tenants increase year on year. Personally, my best landlords/ladies have been ones who have managed the property themselves and only use agents to find a property. The renewal charge is the worst. I've thankfully never had to pay it. The one I find problematic is the tenant substitution charge when a flatmate leaves. The departing flatmate doesn't pay and the remaining tenants have to break it to the potential replacements that they have to pay £100 to the agents before moving in addition to their six week deposit and month in advance. this makes the business of finding a replacement tenant very difficult. I totally agree that there should be some kind of campaign on this.

Topsy1_2

Tiglet wrote: »

What would happen if you didn't do all of this?

The tenant could stay put (unless they wanted to leave)
The landlord could keep their tenant (unless they wanted rid of them)
Nobody would have to pay anybody any money
Everybody would be happy (except the poor agent who would would have no excuse to charge any more than their usual fees)

Yeah, I agree! I have to say that I always had trouble justifying, (ethically - not because I couldn't speak!), to tenants why these fees were payable. Fortunately, as I was only the manager, rather than the owner, I could blaim it on company policy rather than having to justify it personally.

From the tenant's point of view, renewing the agreement puts them in a better position because it gives them another fixed term of 6, 12 months, whatever and means they are definitely able to stay in the property for all of that time. If the contract is allowed to roll-over at the end of the initial fixed term and is not renewed, the LL can, at any time, serve 2 months notice.

Also, from the LL's point of view, if the contract is renewed, they get another fixed term with the knowledge that they are definitely, (assuming no rent arrears problems arise), going to get another 6, 12 months of rent without the tenant giving their one month's notice at any time.

So yes, pro's and con's to the renewal side of things.. But letting agents still need to be able to run a business in a financially viable way.. surely?

Topsy1_2

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Letting agents!!

Private LLs, surely? The letting agent acts as a barrier between tenant and LL, and a good, regulated, qualified one, (like I used to be before student-hood beckoned! ), will always mediate and negotiate between both parties.

How many private LLs do not know the law and act willy-nilly? Walking into properties without notice to carry out works or for unscheduled inspections, not carrying out the annual gas check because they've forgotten the renewal date, issuing the wrong possession notices, issuing incomplete or inaccurate (and therefore, unlawful), tenancy agreements, with-holding deposits on an ad hoc basis with no justification, not carrying maintenance and repair works within LL obligations, etc, etc....

Yes, there are an awful lot of good private LLs out there who do know what they're on about and act fairly and lawfully.

But there are also an awful lot who do not. And it ends up being the tenant who suffers. At least with a regulated agent, (ARLA, NAEA, RICS), you have an agent who abides by a professional code of conduct, who knows the law, knows the health and safety issues, and who, as I said, will act as a mediator/negotiator between LL and tenant. The LA may be employed by the LL, but they also have a very strong duty of care for the tenant.

You don't get that with a private LL. What the private LL says, goes. Or guess who will be getting notice served on them for being too "awkward"? :rolleyes: