Autumn Statement discussion

Miss_Samantha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Should it be easier to set up as a letting agent given that they currently require no qualifications and no specific training? Any twit can (and does) set up as a letting agent.

This talk about increased competition is just rubbish, then. The usual nonsensical spin.

The key issue remains: As long as the supply of housing won't meet demand tenants will be squeezed. This is what allows high rents and high fees.
Any measure that restricts supply will end up hurting tenants.

Let's be honest, in hot spots like London property is never going to be cheap. So people must accept that living there means paying a lot or living in a very small flat.

Pixie5740

Yes, whilst I think tenants not being scalped by letting agents is a good thing, this policy won't mean there are more properties available to rent or buy.

HouseBuyer77

This talk about increased competition is just rubbish, then. The usual nonsensical spin

The idea is it's far easier for a landlord to switch agents than it is for a tenant. Hence there is less pressure on agents to provided good value on the tenant end of the deal.

Hand an LL a £500 bill every time they move a new tenant in they'll be quickly looking for a cheaper alternative.

Miss_Samantha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes, whilst I think tenants not being scalped by letting agents is a good thing, this policy won't mean there are more properties available to rent or buy.

And then tenants will continue to "be scalped", just perhaps in a slightly different way. People should really see beyond the tip of their nose.

The government is simply in the sh*ts and is throwing crumbs away to mask the big picture.

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

The idea is it's far easier for a landlord to switch agents than it is for a tenant.

It won't increase competition.

It may lead to a reshuffle and some agents might go out of business: When the dust settles there will be less competition.

Pixie5740

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Then tenants will continue to "be scalped", just perhaps in a slightly different way. People should see beyond the tip of their nose.

Scalped in what different ways? Making the fees unlawful in Scotland didn't lead to a significant increase in rent. Furthermore, if making the fees unlawful in England will bring an end to the aggressive marketing technique employed by some agents (pay hundreds to sign a new renewal or be issued a Section 21) then I think that is a good thing.

Miss_Samantha

England has some very hot spots for rental and many private landlords do not actually aggressively track the market in term of rent level.

What happened in Scotland is not necessarily a good reference for what will happen in, say, London.

Also, you should not be had by the headlines. Landlords may recover the £500 this will cost them by only a moderate rent increase, especially where rents are high.
So no 'significant rent increases' but tenant end up paying the same as they did when they had to pay fees upfront.

And again, at the end of the day this can only reduce supply which will make it even more difficult for tenants.

BarryBlue

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes, whilst I think tenants not being scalped by letting agents is a good thing, this policy won't mean there are more properties available to rent or buy.

Absolutely right. Also, I fail to see how banning letting fees will benefit prospective tenants either. If fees are dumped on landlords it will mean they will be passed on through increased rents. I use an agent for my properties and am very satisfied with the cost and service. If anything changed, of course I would shop around, but increased costs mean increased rents as sure as night follows day.

I'm afraid these plans by the hapless Hammond are typical of the government, who do no more than tinker at the edges to try an look like they are doing something. Nothing will change without a massive house building programme over several decades, so BTL is still looking a sound investment.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

It won't increase competition.

It may lead to a reshuffle and some agents might go out of business: When the dust settles there will be less competition.

As a result of what? The office burning down? A biblical plague? The bad ones would go out of business - that's competition.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

BarryBlue wrote: »

Absolutely right. Also, I fail to see how banning letting fees will benefit prospective tenants either. If fees are dumped on landlords it will mean they will be passed on through increased rents. I use an agent for my properties and am very satisfied with the cost and service. If anything changed, of course I would shop around, but increased costs mean increased rents as sure as night follows day.

I'm afraid these plans by the hapless Hammond are typical of the government, who do no more than tinker at the edges to try an look like they are doing something. Nothing will change without a massive house building programme over several decades, so BTL is still looking a sound investment.

Why will they?! If tenants can pay it, ergo there is a market for it, why weren't all these LLs up and down the country charging more before todays announcement? LLs can charge what the market can bear. If tenants can't afford it, I'm afraid LLs or letting agents will bear it. If the tenants swallow it up then it shows the none of these LLs are great businesspeople.


There is evidence only 4 years ago when this was introduced in Scotland - rents didn't budge.

ognum

I am a LL, I am happy that tenant fees are being removed. As a LL factoring in referencing and start up fees should be part of your buisness plan.

I use an agent, they charge nothing, yes, nothing for a contract renewal. Nothing to me and nothing to the tenant. They say all it is is altering a couple of figures and date and printing, they absorb this into the 8% I pay them each month.

We need to change our way of thinking, stop fleecing tenants and start providing a good service.