Did you rent from a rule breaking letting agent?

tbs624

jjlandlord wrote: »

With all the real issues, it does seem like a distraction to spend time reporting letting agents who do not correctly list their fees.

After all, all prospective tenants would be smart enough to first enquire, then check the documents he is asked to sign, wouldn't they?

Likewise, all landlords would check and negotiate before hiring an agent, wouldn't they?


Shelter is (once again, unfortunately) on a witch-hunt.

:rotfl:Nope, no "witch hunt" IMO. Merely helping Ts to get long overdue transparency on spurious LA/LL fees which can add a huge amount to the amount that a potential T has to pay out upfront.

As mentioned by some of the posters in this thread, Ts have often
already shelled out intial fees only to be confronted with further add-ons. Many LLs don't seem to understand the fees which are levied on them personally and plenty seem to have scant regard for what will be charged to the Ts on the other side of the deal.

Let's also remember that LLs can set down what they have to cough up in the way of LA fees on their tax returns - and given that is so, then why on earth should Ts be expected to pay for an LA to print out a pro forma tenancy agreement?

[Deleted User]

As has already been pointed out, the LA is protecting the LL's interests, not the tenants. They are taking references for the LL, not the tenant, so in my view the LL only should be charged for this.

And lets face it, referencing checks are about 25 pounds, not 200. Tea and biscuits 50p, say 100 for the time showing tenants around and copying your usual tenancy agreement (if a LA doesn't have a standard tenancy agreement, they're not up to much), typing in the LL's property details etc.

Sorry but 200 pounds plus VAT still sounds like a rip off. And presumably, the LL gets charged too. Plus if handling the property, there's a percentage of the rental charge each month.

Not having a go, just saying lets be honest lol. You are not acting on behalf of the tenant, so any fees are 'unfair'.

nadirnwo

There is surely a compromise here.

Landlords want people referenced for their security, fair enough. Why cant the three credit referencing agencies be used? Surely, they have enough data already or additional data could be held by them. This would be cheaper and easily accessible.

Or tenants should be able to contact referencing agencies themselves and shop around for the best option and present it to the landlord.

CreditCrunchie

The CRA's are used. That's what LA's supposedly charge a 'credit check' fee for.

jjlandlord

tbs624 wrote: »

As mentioned by some of the posters in this thread, Ts have often already shelled out intial fees only to be confronted with further add-ons.

As I said, why don't they enquire first?

No-one seems to have actually read this ASA decision (I'm not surprised considering the usual 'noise' that passes as comments on here).

It is, obviously, only about advertising and non-optional fees (so fees to 'renew' need not be mentioned). And obviously a holding deposit is not a fee, so no need to mention in the ad.

E.g. if the rent is £1000 pcm there is a fixed admin/referencingg fee of £200 the lettings agent must advertise as "£1000 pcm + £200 admin fee".
So it just saves one question to ask during viewing, and a question that should always be asked by any intelligent person.

Even further, if the fees structure is more complicated they can state "fees apply" with small prints to detail them.

This is all very minor and has nothing to do with the level of fees, or with 'spurious' fees, which most posters in this thread, and yourself, seem to be ranting about.

If Shelter time on their hands to go after this good for them, I'm not a donor.
It's just another way for them to hit on the 'exploiters' as seem unfortunately to be their view of anyone making money from lettings.

tripled

jjlandlord wrote: »

So it just saves one question to ask during viewing, and a question that should always be asked by any intelligent person.

Even further, if the fees structure is more complicated they can state "fees apply" with small prints to detail them.

This is all very minor and has nothing to do with the level of fees, or with 'spurious' fees, which most posters in this thread, and yourself, seem to be ranting about.

I'm baffled why you're against making fees more transparent. This isn't even about removing them, capping them or in any way regulating them, just ensuring they are easily available.

Some agents don't like giving their fees out. It's a proven sales tactic, hooking someone and then shaking them down. Why should a tenant wait until the viewing, or even the point of signing, to find out about fees? Particularly as what the agent says isn't worth the paper it's written on, and they can be averse to some "forgetfulness". I viewed properties in my student days where some agents were economical with the truth (about all sorts of things, not specifically fees), and you didn't find that out until at the signing (or even until you got the keys!).

I'm currently looking for a private rental between £500 and £700 p/m. I take the time to hunt through each LA's website for the fees. I've worked out the cheapest over a 6 month tenancy inc renewal/checkout fee are around the £200 mark and the more expensive around £600. Renewal fees alone range from £0 to well over £100. Some include VAT in their prices, some don't. Some charge a holding desposit, some for a guarantor. Some for check-in, some for check-out. Some for referencing and credit checks.

I pretty much ignore any property marketed by the most expensive ones and have registered myself with the more reasonable LAs. So publishing fees has worked for me. This level of transparency encourages competition and so personally I fully agree with what Shelter are doing.

Competition (and so transparency) on tenant fees can also benefit landlords if they take the trouble to care about them. I factor tenancy fees into my budget so the lower the agency fee, the higher the rent I would consider for an identical property. Additionally, if the more reasonable agents end up with more tentants on their books (as in my case I have only contacted the more reasonable ones), landlords chosing them may be able to fill properties faster and reduce voids.

jjlandlord

tripled wrote: »

I'm baffled why you're against making fees more transparent. This isn't even about removing them, capping them or in any way regulating them, just ensuring they are easily available.

Oh, I see: I comment that Shelter is again on a politically-driven witch hunt (assisted by attention-seeking MSE... I worked, I bit), and I get a reply that drags on and on, and misses many points that I'm against making fees more transparent.

Typical on these forums, unfortunately.

tripled wrote: »

Renewal fees alone range from £0 to well over £100

Real money saving tip for you: Do not renew, stay on.
And again (I already said it...) they still don't have to advertise renewing fees under the ASA decision this thread it).

Heliflyguy

jjlandlord wrote: »

No-one seems to have actually read this ASA decision (I'm not surprised considering the usual 'noise' that passes as comments on here).

It is, obviously, only about advertising and non-optional fees (so fees to 'renew' need not be mentioned). And obviously a holding deposit is not a fee, so no need to mention in the ad.

3.18 covers non optional taxes duties fees and charges (ref airline pricing)
3.19 covers if the tax duty fee or charge cannot be calculated in advance.
So a holding deposit might not be a fee but it is a charge.
If I cannot make an application to rent because I refuse to pay a holding deposit then it is non optional.
But of course you know that because you have of course read the CAP advise.

Cant see why LA's cant just be upfront with all the costs anyway.
One should ask but then can you really trust an LA with an honest answer until they have that holding fee in their hands, and yes I am aware that that can be returned but not without a lot of hassle.

CreditCrunchie

I read it thoroughly. I also asked those questions, and so did others if you actually read the responses here.

Heliflyguy

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

if you actually read the responses here.

I have and I wasn't replying to anything you posted.
Believe it or not I'm on your side so maybe you would like to be a little more polite in your response next time.