Estate agent reduced rent without informing landlord

mgarl10024

When the £900 was offered, what reason does the Letting Agent give for not contacting you to discuss?

macman

As above, clear breach of contract. How difficult would it have been for them to call or even text you to check that the reduction was acceptable? Agent should deduct the loss from their commission without demur.

martindow

I would suggest that the £25 shortfall is made up by them reducing their cut each month. They made a decision without consulting you.

Would these tenants, who have presumably already paid out fees for referencing etc., have really refused to go ahead had the agents said no to the tenants' offer?

DaftyDuck

Whenever somebody or someone c0cks up like this, rather than ask them to pay me the dosh, I generally suggest they make an equivalent donation to a charity of my choice. It goes down much better, still acts as a "punishment", they are fairly unlikely to say "no", and cats/orphans/cancer patients get to eat gruel that evening.

I keep a tally - approximately £9,000 over the last decade! Reason it's so high? Almost anyone will dispute returning cash to you - it's impossible to say no to a cheque to Macmillan or Cancer Research UK.

I would, however, change agency, if they don't show some remorse or contrition. It may have made financial sense, but they should have consulted you before doing this.

G_M

DaftyDuck wrote: »

...It goes down much better, still acts as a "punishment", they are fairly unlikely to say "no", and cats/orphans/cancer patients get to eat gruel that evening.

I appreciate the offer but I already have tonight's gruel on the stove.

chucknorris

mrginge wrote: »

True, but from the tenants perspective they may feel aggrieved that they agreed £900 and the OP then comes along immediately after the fixed term ends and pushes back up to to £925. The risk may be small, but the LA's actions have caused that risk to exist by taking a short term view. I don't call that being 'financially astute'

That's my point. The OP is now in a position where he cannot just continue as is onto a periodic without taking a loss. I accept that it's unlikely to cause a major issue in the grand scheme of things, but this situation would at least make me wonder about who's actual interests the LA was really concerned about.

The tenants would have no reason to feel aggrieved at all, they got a good deal (or at least what they thought was fair) at £25 under the advertised rent.

You are being far too pedantic, there isn't any loss. If anything there might even be a slight gain (if the property is furnished) as more rent will be collected prior to the point where landlords can still claim the wear and tear allowance on furnished properties (although I must admit that in making that point I am almost being as pedantic as you). The only real issue is that the agent seems to have over stepped his authority and not consulted his client, which needs to be addressed to ensure that it does not happen again.

Freecall

it doesn't look like there is any actual loss assuming that it is a 12 month contract, as 12 months x £25 rent reduction = £300 as would also a 10 day void (also it might have ended up more than 10 days).

Not so sure about this.

The arithmetic is not the issue. When running any business, including letting property, pricing is a fundamental part of the marketing mix.

Having considered the price point and response to any offers, it is not the job of an agent to then unilaterally change things.

A supermarket can price low and have things fly off the shelves or price at a premium level and accept lower volumes with stock hanging around waiting for a sale. Both business models are valid.

It is the OP's business and they should control pricing as well as other factors. Suppose the agent signed up the tenant on a 12 month contract when they had been instructed to sign for 6 on the basis that it would bring more revenue. Even if it did, they would be acting against the OP's instructions.


I still bet that the contract the OP has with the agent says that the client authorizes them to do pretty much what ever they like, so I doubt that there is any point in pursuing the matter.

As others have said, find another agent.

chucknorris

Freecall wrote: »

Not so sure about this.

The arithmetic is not the issue. When running any business, including letting property, pricing is a fundamental part of the marketing mix.

Having considered the price point and response to any offers, it is not the job of an agent to then unilaterally change things.

A supermarket can price low and have things fly off the shelves or price at a premium level and accept lower volumes with stock hanging around waiting for a sale. Both business models are valid.

It is the OP's business and they should control pricing as well as other factors. Suppose the agent signed up the tenant on a 12 month contract when they had been instructed to sign for 6 on the basis that it would bring more revenue. Even if it did, they would be acting against the OP's instructions.


I still bet that the contract the OP has with the agent says that the client authorizes them to do pretty much what ever they like, so I doubt that there is any point in pursuing the matter.

As others have said, find another agent.

I don't think you have read my post correctly, the arithmetic not being the issue is exactly my point, which is why I also said this:

If it was me I would make the point that they shouldn't make these decisions on your behalf, but on this occasion I would let it go.

By let it go, I meant let any discussion about (non existent losses go), but do something about not being consulted, to make sure that it doesn't happen again. If they had signed the tenant up for a different duration that would be a huge problem, we have 8 London investment properties, we seldom use agents, in my experience they just are not worth it and they can cause problems.

skintpaul

Surely not agent's place to agree different rents, without the owner's say so?

katieks

Hi, thanks for all replies. Part of me feels that they could have held out for extra £25 because the way the tenant was described to me was as 'very keen to move in, great tenant, loves the house, etc, etc'. At no point was it mentioned, 'oh and she only wants to pay £900'.

I think I am going to ask them to make up the shortfall as we are on the fully managed rate so they're getting a fair whack of the monthly rent and this does create the awkward situation of when do we now raise the rent to what we were originally after and how will that go down with the tenant? Plus of course, whether the EA's will charge for the new agreement documents if the rent is raised? I don't want to lose the current tenant though, so will be asking EA to make up the shortfall, at least for the first 6 months which is what the initial minimum agreement is for.

I'll let you know how I get on.