What's in it for LL to manage a property through an agency rather than directly?

Werdnal

A LL may choose to use an agent for a number of reasons:

They don't feel confident dealing with tenant themselves.
They don't feel they know enough about tenancy laws and housing regs to manage the let themselves.
They live too far away to keep an eye on the property and arrange inspection visits, maintenance etc.
They live overseas.

I used to used an agent to manage my let for several years, until I felt confident enough to handle the letting side of things myself, vet my own tenants, set up an tenancy agreement etc. However, agents do not need any minimum qualifications or experience to set themselves up, and can be as clueless at the LL, so it pays to choose wisely, get references from other LL who use them etc.

Typically agents charge 10% minimum (+Vat) for their management service. LL can deduct this against any tax they pay. There is sometimes an initial admin fee for tenant finding/vetting too.

Don't really know why there was aggression towards you in the initial replies here - you are quite welcome to ask the questions you have, whether you are a tenant or not. Most of this information is publicly available if you searched in the right places!

Regarding the re-signing direct with the LL, only they will know what terms and conditions they signed when employing the agents to take on the contract. Some agents tie LLs in to pay commission for the duration of the tenant's stay in the property, even if they wish to cut ties with the agent. However, newbie and ineperienced LLs may not want to take on self-management, or may have even less idea how to than even the most incompetent agent.

What do you mean by a Conditional S21 - please explain how and why this was issued?

G_M

zas31 wrote: »

Plus: how does the LL know they are not being milked by the agency? Consider a well-known agency (can't do names here) who advertise the properties well above market and as a result they remain vacant for months?

I don't uderstand point one. LL has a contract with his agent to do XYZ in return for a fee.
Either the agent does as instricted, in which case LL is getting the service he pays for and is not being 'milked', or the agent does NOT do XYZ in which case LL will check, find out and complain or sue for breach of contract or move his business elsewhere.

I guess a few LLs check nothing and get ripped off (agent pockets the rent...) but criminal acts occur to some extent in every business sector/walk of life.

Why would a 'well-known agent advertise the properties well above market and as a result they remain vacant for months'

If the property is empty, there is no 'tenant find' fee, and also no rent and therefore no 'manangement fee', so the agent gets nothing.

zas31

Werdnal wrote: »

What do you mean by a Conditional S21 - please explain how and why this was issued?

The tenancy is up for the usual annual renewal (n-th year now), so 9.5 months into the term of the contract the agency have issued S21(b) stating that "S21 ... will be revoked should an agreement on ... renewal be reached and the signed documentation is received from you ... prior to the start of the last month of the tenancy the property... . [Otherwise the property] will be placed back on the market for re-letting immediately."

So there is a number of scenarios where the LL can be up for a long vacancy while the property is being re-marketed. Neither this arrangement is of much benefit to me.

Werdnal

There is absolutely no need to sign another renewal. Have you never heard of a Statutory Periodic Tenancy? LA are using the S21 to beat you over the head with and try to get you to agree a renewal and charge you AND the LL for the something that is absolutely unnecessary.

Do you know your LL? If so, write to them, requesting a statutory periodic tenancy, which is yours by right the day after the current fixed term ends. LL may be blissfully uaware of this fact, and the legal entitlement to never renew your tenancy ever again and remain on an SPT happily ever after. If LL agree, they TELL the agent to stop being total !!!!!holes and threatening to evict you.

Infact the S21 being issued by the LA (if the LL is unaware), is not really worth the paper it is written on, as the LA cannot go to court for a possession order, the LL must do it themselves, so all the more reason to tell the LL the full facts here!

seriousDFW

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

I stand by what I said, whether you like it or not.

As the tenant, how the LL manages their financial affairs has got nothing whatsoever to do with you!

You are right, of course, it is none of the tenant's business. However, that doesn't stop the tenant wondering this and being interested in the answers.

Your point is completely irrelevant to the OP's questions. The OP wasn't implying that he felt it was his business, but was interested to know potential reasons.

zas31

Werdnal wrote: »

LA are using the S21 to beat you over the head with and try to get you to agree a renewal and charge you AND the LL for the something that is absolutely unnecessary.

Exactly, and I was saying all along that it doesn't seem the agency is acting in the best interest of the LL.

Thank you for you comment, now I have some food for thought and keywords for further research.

G_M

Re 'conditional S21' and the end of the Fixed Term, read this post fo more info on options.

Antispam

jimiharr :spam: muppet all 29 posts

G_M

Antispam wrote: »

jimiharr :spam: muppet all 29 posts

With respect... you've posted this on 8 + threads .... spam?

:eek:

BobQ

zas31 wrote: »

I know the agency plays games with me, but equally they don't act in LL's interests (there are examples).

1. Wouldn't the LL be better off by signing a contract directly with me? The property is relatively new, and there are very few things that did go wrong or could go wrong -- both in terms of structure or equipment, and I'm not a trouble-maker. Assume the LL does not own too many other properties to let. What's the typical uplift for a LL of going directly,
.

You have had some good responses above on various reasons people choose to do this. Ultimately its a judgement, you are right that it costs money but its wrong to assume this is a levy on you when in fact its a levy on the LL.

The main reasons come down to time and not living locally is a big factor as is the time you are willing to devote to it. Remember some tenants are low maintenance, they put up with trivial things, sometimes even sort them out without telling you, and are a pleasure deal with and you wish you had not used an agent. Others are high maintenance and continually ring up with minor things (I think the light in the lounge has a problem but it does not happen all the time, the neighbour is parking in front of the drive etc) and may get quite aggressive.

I once let a property through an agent and needed to pop around to the house (by appointment) to decide what to do about a property issue. The tenants comprised four attractive young ladies who were unashamedly flirtatious. Frankly I left everything to the agent after that!