Any letting agents reading this?

Mozzanov

G_M wrote: »

Now you are worrying me.

You're a letting agent.

you should know the law relating to letting. Your landlords all assume you do, and rely on you to know.

whilst in this case your cautious requirement for your LLs to have certificates is sensible, I now worry what other aspects of letting law you don't know...

edit: oh dear - I so didn't want to join the agent-bashing in this thread! Don't get scared off. The forum actually needs some agent-input I believe.

(Yes, although I'm quoting G_M, the below is you Nick.)

I know how G_M might seem, but he really knows his stuff. So don't take the above from him too personally. In fact, my sister became a LL last year and I told her to visit this forum and read the posts here, in particular his.

Zorz_2

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is a free market: When you ask people to do something they are free to state their price, and in turn you are free to accept or refuse.

If you knew how much everything we buy in supermarkets/shops actually cost you might also wonder how come such inflated selling prices are legal

I respectfully disagree. From a tenant's point of view, it is far closer to a captive market.

As someone else already pointed out, I can buy the exact same cheese from Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, ASDA or the local convienence store. A specific property though, is only available through one agency. Also, most tenants face severe location and time obstacles in choosing a property. Location is constrained to where is reasonably convenient to commute and/or the childrens' school etc. And they have a narrow window of opportunity from the time they give notice to their previous landlord to securing a new house.

And finally, lets not forget that in London housing demand outstrips the supply.

At least landlords have more options available.

[Deleted User]

We're looking for a place to rent in the centre of Newcastle. There are very few private lets available - far fewer than in other places I've lived. The agents fall into one of two categories. The student ones have student properties and low fees. The professional ones have properties we're interested in - but they all charge what seems to be a standard set of fees: half a month's rent, plus VAT, for admin and reference checks; and a flat, non-refundable holding deposit of around £100, plus VAT, per person (how they have the cheek to call it a 'deposit' I don't know). So you're looking at not much short of a month's rent just in fees.

I think this is outrageous, and I don't understand why there isn't regulation. In Scotland, all tenant fees are illegal - which means agents have to include these costs in the rents or the landlord fees. This has two positive effects: (i) costs to the tenant are transparent; and (ii) the agent has less incentive to churn tenants, since their income depends on tenants being in houses and staying there, rather than in moving people on every 12 months. Grant Schapps says 'red tape' is the reason for the lack of regulation. That's crap: there's no red tape involved in banning fees to tenants. On the contrary, it would require less red tape than the current system. It's just one simple rule.

For those talking about a free market: don't kid yourselves. Here's the situation in Newcastle. All the professional agents have basically the same fee structure I described above, with only minor variations. There are few private lets, and no good ones that we've found (and believe me we've looked). So the 'choice' that the free market gives us is: (a) stay in the ok but not especially nice private rental we have; (b) rent a flat intended for students, with all that entails, with no fees; or (c) pay the outrageous agent fees to get access to the professional rentals. That doesn't look like a properly free market to me.

Better_Days

Zorz wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. From a tenant's point of view, it is far closer to a captive market.

I agree with this. Due to my mobility problems and having pets (we had previously been in OO) we had very little choice regarding suitable properties and therefore LA. It seems to me that being a LA is treated by some as a licence to print money. Given the charges quoted by some LA's we were lucky to only be charged £225 in fees by the LA. Although along with the various deposits it all came to well over £2k for a £725pm rental. I can see how many will have difficulty finding that amount of money in one go.

Interestingly we looked round one property with the LA and LL. I asked about fees and the LL got out his sheet and pointed to the various amounts charged for this and that - he didn't actually say out loud what the fees were, it was clear the LL didn't have any idea what the LL charged T's.

I asked for a draft Tenancy agreement to look through and there were some clauses which were incorrect (for example 2 months notice from the T, or that unpaid utility bills can be deducted from the deposit).

I do think LA's should be regulated, LA's often have T's over a barrell and a good few take advantage of their position of strength in the market.

bap98189

As tennants, we've had to deal with a number of different letting agents over the past 10 years or so. Almost all have been very good. We do though live in a fairly rural location, so most of the agents tend to be 1 or 2 person businesses. In my experience they tend to be far more hands-on and approachable and also charge far more sensible fees for things than the big chains.

Better_Days

Just to add at check in LA's appear to employ some strange new usage of the word 'clean' of which I was previously unaware (and I am not houseproud by any stretch of the imagination).

Plus they appear to apply different standards at check out requiring higher standards from the T than from the LL - requiring 'professional cleaning' of carpets, ovens appears to be a favourite. A friend commented that she had left her flat a great deal cleaner at check out (and she is house proud, and I have never seen her house as anything but immaculate) but the LA's complained about a bit of dust on the skirting board!

G_M

Better_Days wrote: »

Just to add at check in LA's appear to employ some strange new usage of the word 'clean' of which I was previously unaware (and I am not houseproud by any stretch of the imagination).

Plus they appear to apply different standards at check out requiring higher standards from the T than from the LL -

"The AIIC are dedicated to promoting the highest possible standards of accuracy and reliability and have been endorsing high levels of professionalism in the inventory business since 1996."

So that's OK then...

harpoboy

armour wrote: »

... I am looking for a good agent (to let out a property owned by my brother) in the Harpenden area.
Anyone out there with local knowledge?

I've used both Savills and John Curtis in the past. Both were fine.

CWSmith

I am a landlady who uses a Management Agent. She is brilliant - honest, reliable - she keeps me fully informed of all and every detail and organises repairs quickly and cheaply.

k0sh

I am raising my head up to be shot at, I am an EA and LA.

Having read some of the LA bashing posts, I will just say that any high street agent has to take into account all of their overheads. Not just "the cost of paper and toner". We have to make at least 8k a month just to break even.
I have read several posts where LL's have made basic deposit errors which will cost them much more than instructing a LA would have.