Tenant Fees - Infuriating

KingS6

Guest101 wrote: »

You are free to look elsewhere, either at a totally independent listing by a landlord, or shop around for cheaper agencies.


You are choosing to use an agent because you want what they are offering, just not happy with the price.


I'm not even defending letting agents on this, some are totally incompetent. But I cant understand this 'its not fair' attitude, normally reserved for children

This. If you're interested in a property. You can always do a Land Registry check, see what details it throws up and see if you can approach them directly. Bit of good old fashioned detective work. Worst they can say is no.

WolfSong2000

The last letting agent I had the "pleasure" of dealing with was trying to charge £700 in fees. I negotiated down to £420 and landlord instructed letting agent that they wanted me as a tenant. Letting agent simply dragged their heels and threw up issues, wasting both myself and landlord's time and then decided point blank they would refuse to rent to me (obviously wanted to hold out for someone who would pay their exorbitant fees).

Guest101

WolfSong2000 wrote: »

The last letting agent I had the "pleasure" of dealing with was trying to charge £700 in fees. I negotiated down to £420 and landlord instructed letting agent that they wanted me as a tenant. Letting agent simply dragged their heels and threw up issues, wasting both myself and landlord's time and then decided point blank they would refuse to rent to me (obviously wanted to hold out for someone who would pay their exorbitant fees).

I'd suggest they were in breach of contract

marksoton

WolfSong2000 wrote: »

The last letting agent I had the "pleasure" of dealing with was trying to charge £700 in fees. I negotiated down to £420 and landlord instructed letting agent that they wanted me as a tenant. Letting agent simply dragged their heels and threw up issues, wasting both myself and landlord's time and then decided point blank they would refuse to rent to me (obviously wanted to hold out for someone who would pay their exorbitant fees).

Blimey, £700?!

I'd have tried negotiating with the LL and got him to ditch the rogue agent and deal direct if you have their good will.

We should have adopted Scotland's systems by now.

whatajoke2016

Guest101 wrote: »

You are free to look elsewhere, either at a totally independent listing by a landlord, or shop around for cheaper agencies.


You are choosing to use an agent because you want what they are offering, just not happy with the price.


I'm not even defending letting agents on this, some are totally incompetent. But I cant understand this 'its not fair' attitude, normally reserved for children

Nowadays, when one looks for places to rent, one jumps on Zoopla/Rightmove (like autotrader for cars or ebay for things/stuff).... so one looks at the property first and then notices that they are posted up by a less than desireable agency perhaps... A tenant wants the property and a buyer wants the property.... not the agent in effect.

Kind of like saying I want to buy your sofa but I don't like your middle man who is selling it to me.

whatajoke2016

marksoton wrote: »

Blimey, £700?!

I'd have tried negotiating with the LL and got him to ditch the rogue agent and deal direct if you have their good will.

We should have adopted Scotland's systems by now.

I just tried this as I met the landlord of the property I went to view after I viewed it and agreed to take it. The landlord was very nice and I was happy to deal with them and equally, they could see that I was reputable as a human being etc.

The landlord dealt with the letting agent I went to last time and wants to use them again so after going to the letting agent to negotiate a lower tenancy fee due to knowing what these cost as we rent out a property ourselves... and the director of the firm was very offended by asking for lowering so I received a message saying "The DIRECTOR of LETTING firm has told me what happened..... so i think it is best for both of us that we do not go ahead with the tenancy".

I tried to do this.... but i know what the director would have said.. lets get another tenant who will pay all the money/bad things about me and that I am not suitable.... but if letting fees are banned tomorrow... then all that goes away.

We need to hurry this up in parliament...

Guest101

whatajoke2016 wrote: »

Nowadays, when one looks for places to rent, one jumps on Zoopla/Rightmove (like autotrader for cars or ebay for things/stuff).... so one looks at the property first and then notices that they are posted up by a less than desireable agency perhaps... A tenant wants the property and a buyer wants the property.... not the agent in effect.

Kind of like saying I want to buy your sofa but I don't like your middle man who is selling it to me.

For buyers it's not really an issue, but yes basically nail on the head.

If you want that property, then those are the conditions. You aren't forced to do it. You can choose a different property ( or a different sofa )

itchyfeet123

Guest101 wrote: »

What are you paying for exactly?

Because now that you're in. You don't need to pay anything else.

I mean using the agent in general -- fees like those listed in the OP. I did just let my tenancy go periodic because I refuse to pay £100+ for someone to change the dates in my contract. And for that they don't even give hard copies of the contract.

I wouldn't mind so much if the typical fees were listed as:
£40 - reference checks
£50 - agent's time showing property
£350 - licence to print money, because we can

Naf

Guest101 wrote: »

...You can choose a different property ( or a different sofa )

Not if you're poor, have just been handed a S21, and its the only advertised property which you could actually afford. Housing Benefit is calculated on the lowest 30% of rents in the area (and actually not even that, since if that percentile is more expensive than the old LHA rate, the old rate is used instead). It doesn't account in any way for the rents actually available on the market, only whats currently being paid. So lots of us have little choice but to jump on whatever is available which we can actually manage long term.
So can you not see how callous "well you have a choice, dont you!" sounds? LAs are just playing games and profiteering from people's desperation. Its bad enough when Apple do it, but at least they're not (directly) toying with the roof over people's heads.

While the sofa is a good analogy, it makes for a terrible comparison.
Vaccines are a better one (albeit not directly relevant in this country; not until the Selfservatives have destroyed the NHS, anyway). If they're the only ones with a cure, is it fair to price some people out of it completely. After all, they still have the choice of existing treatments so they can just die more slowly... Rock, meet hard place.

Rampant, unchecked free-market capitalism is rotten to the core. People are not just herds of animals to be driven around 'till they die for the sake of other people's profits.

Guest101

Naf wrote: »

Not if you're poor, have just been handed a S21, and its the only advertised property which you could actually afford. Housing Benefit is calculated on the lowest 30% of rents in the area (and actually not even that, since if that percentile is more expensive than the old LHA rate, the old rate is used instead). It doesn't account in any way for the rents actually available on the market, only whats currently being paid. So lots of us have little choice but to jump on whatever is available which we can actually manage long term.
So can you not see how callous "well you have a choice, dont you!" sounds? LAs are just playing games and profiteering from people's desperation. Its bad enough when Apple do it, but at least they're not (directly) toying with the roof over people's heads.

While the sofa is a good analogy, it makes for a terrible comparison.
Vaccines are a better one (albeit not directly relevant in this country; not until the Selfservatives have destroyed the NHS, anyway). If they're the only ones with a cure, is it fair to price some people out of it completely. After all, they still have the choice of existing treatments so they can just die more slowly... Rock, meet hard place.

Rampant, unchecked free-market capitalism is rotten to the core. People are not just herds of animals to be driven around 'till they die for the sake of other people's profits.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this

The 'cure' is to buy a house, that is plainly out of reach. - using your example