Autumn Statement discussion

Heliflyguy

Im surprised and delighted by this and never mind all the usual fees it will get shot of the dreadful holding fee (I hope).

Crashy_Time

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You're right that they do seem to let the less well-off fend for themselves when it comes to finding a home, don't they?

No, they give them housing benefit for landlords to hoover up. Thankfully that also seems to be under pressure as well as fees.

Miss_Samantha

Crashy_Time wrote: »

No, they give them housing benefit for landlords to hoover up. Thankfully that also seems to be under pressure as well as fees.

OK, HB tenants will live under bridges, then...

Crashy_Time

BarryBlue wrote: »

Maybe not. But it also is not their job to make it more difficult for the people who are providing homes because of their failed policies in building sufficient affordable homes for those 'hard working people' they love to bang on about.

Most private landlords are decent people who have pride in their properties and have a good relationship with their tenants. What needs to happen may be greater protection for decent tenants who play the game properly. But there needs to be no protection for those that don't, the people who damage property and/or don't pay their rent.

And if landlords didn`t own those homes that are "provided" I suppose the homes would disappear in a puff of smoke? :rotfl:So funny seeing people clinging to the old memes as the ground shifts beneath their feet.

[Deleted User]

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Well our beloved leader Martin is on 5Live at the moment saying that if they are passed on to tenants, it won't be on a like for like basis (ie 300 of fees perhaps 150 will be passed on), and that he is wholeheartedly behind it. Also said that more regulation is required in the rental market.

The other side to this is that it will be quite difficult for letting agents to simply turn round to landlords and say they're about to charge them £300+ every time they process a new tenant. Landlords aren't going to be any more willing to accept that it costs hundreds of pounds to print out standard tenancy agreements than tenants were. The difference is that landlords have leverage to say no.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

gordon_harris wrote: »

The other side to this is that it will be quite difficult for letting agents to simply turn round to landlords and say they're about to charge them £300+ every time they process a new tenant. Landlords aren't going to be any more willing to accept that it costs hundreds of pounds to print out standard tenancy agreements than tenants were. The difference is that landlords have leverage to say no.

I quite agree.


http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?76776-Will-rents-rise-after-Agents-fees-ban


Near the beginning of this thread is an agency who without the fees they charge tenants would go out of business. What a hopeless business model!

Guest101

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Tenants will still have to lay some sort of initial fee though, right?

Otherwise they will be tempted to 'hold' hot properties while they're deciding between them and those with poor credit will scatter bomb properties until they get a successful hit.

These actions would not only add cost for the landlord but would tie up properties for those of us who are looking to rent. Less will be available at any given point because the properties are being temporarily held in multiples.

Likely a deposit, not a fee.

Crashy_Time

gordon_harris wrote: »

The other side to this is that it will be quite difficult for letting agents to simply turn round to landlords and say they're about to charge them £300+ every time they process a new tenant. Landlords aren't going to be any more willing to accept that it costs hundreds of pounds to print out standard tenancy agreements than tenants were. The difference is that landlords have leverage to say no.

Bingo...we have a winner! Bang on the money, agents will just have to cut back on the hair gel and top end cars on monthly payments or go and do one.......:rotfl: Funny funny times, you have the guy in the Big House looking like Elvis, while all the EA`s and agents line up for a haircut. Like I have said many times....go long popcorn.

Heliflyguy

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Tenants will still have to lay some sort of initial fee though, right?

Otherwise they will be tempted to 'hold' hot properties while they're deciding between them and those with poor credit will scatter bomb properties until they get a successful hit.

These actions would not only add cost for the landlord but would tie up properties for those of us who are looking to rent. Less will be available at any given point because the properties are being temporarily held in multiples.

If it does follow the Scotish model then it seems the "holding fee" is still paid but is refunded.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/housing/renting-a-home-s/common-problems-with-renting-s/

There will still be the same amount of properties available but I do wonder if the bar for acceptence would then be set higher if there are multiple applications.

What about if the tenant supplied their own credit reference within certain criteria of course?

Miss_Samantha

The issue is that a holding deposit that must always be refundable in full if the tenant decides to change her mind is of no use at all.