Autumn Statement discussion

[Deleted User]

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

This is obviously not good for landlords.It potentially kills an income stream, potentially increases costs, and potentially removes a differentiator (for landlords who do not charge any fee now). Not a single positive angle for landlords.

Is it a positive for landlords to make their properties substantially more expensive for tenants who want to move in simply to subsidise the income of a third party? That's essentially what these fees do: they make your property less desirable to tenants, solely to help the profit margins of a business you're already paying fairly substantial fees to for the service they provide.

Your point about certain landlords losing a "differentiator" is also completely inconsistent with your assertion that all landlords, without exception, will lose out from this development. A differentiator is simply a competitive advantage over other landlords - ergo it's impossible that losing this will hurt all landlords simultaneously. Even if we took your point at face value, it would hurt those landlords who don't charge fees already, and help those who do.

FBaby

As I have said, I am all for good tenants being better protected against unscrupulous landlords and agents. But it needs to help landlords too by penalising bad tenants and enabling evictions to take place on such people very quickly, so that 'blocked' property can be brought back into the market. Ultimately the good tenants are currently subsidising the bad ones.

That won't happen because bad or good, they still need to be housed and the government would much rather than this responsibility falls under the remit of landlords than the local housing departments which can't cope any longer.

I think we do know. Rent increases were down to supply & demand. Demand has now dropped because there are less jobs so now you can rent the same property for less than you could in 2010 before and letting agent fees were made unlawful in 2012

Not in all areas, where I live, it's the other way around, very few family properties which go in less than a week after being advertised, with rental having gone up significantly since 2010.

I personally think that a fee at the start of a tenancy is reasonable, just not multiple fees to hold the property, do reference checks AND whatever else. It should be a fixed one set at a minimum. Fees to renew tenancies should definitely be banned as this is a service to the landlord and therefore should be considered part of the management fee they pay each month.

Pixie5740

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Yes, that does not prove anything either way. Thus you do not know either. QED.



Amongst any group of people there are always a few who do not understand what they are doing

This is obviously not good for landlords.

It potentially kills an income stream, potentially increases costs, and potentially removes a differentiator (for landlords who do not charge any fee now).

Not a single positive angle for landlords.

All agents will be hit. To claim that it'll only hit 'shoddy' agents is disingenuous.

I do know. I have experienced it first hand. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that not paying fees to letting agents has been a positive thing for tenants? You are just speculating as to what might happen but some of us actually lived with both sides of the coin. There are even statistical data available demonstrating that rents didn't significantly increase after letting agent fees were banned but still you don't accept it.

Tenants have no contract with the letting agent do it doesn't make much sense for tenants to pay letting agents money.

Will all letting agents be hit? Instead of charging tenants they'll be charging landlords. It's just that since landlords have more power to vote with their feet letting agents will need to up their game. The good ones like the one ognam uses will be fine because they offer a good service and already don't rely on rip off renewal fees to top up the coffers.



Plenty of letting agents are still operating in Scotland and there are still plenty of people investing in BTL.

People buying investment properties face paying an additional 3% SDLT (LBTT in Scotland) and that still hasn't put some people off so I don't see how these proposed changes will put many people off either. Same with the changes to tax relief for mortgage interest payments. That's not going to deter all BTL investors just the ones whose finances were already on a knife edge.

MobileSaver

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

All agents will be hit. To claim that it'll only hit 'shoddy' agents is disingenuous.

If it makes you happier let's just say it will mainly hit shoddy agents?

Karma has finally caught up with dodgy agents who charge both the landlord but then also rip-off tenants by charging £60 to change a renewal date and hundreds of pounds for a credit check that costs £20.

Agents like those used by Ognum and BarryBlue will be much less affected if at all. Similarly Landlords are business-savvy people and will be much less likely to accept £60 to change a renewal date and £200 for a credit check that costs £20 so I don't think the extortionate charges will be simply passed on to the tenant. This is good news for everyone except dodgy agents.

Miss_Samantha

MobileSaver wrote: »

If it makes you happier let's just say it will mainly hit shoddy agents?

No because that's not true.

Agents are in business to make money like the rest of us. It isn't shoddy to charge the maximum you can, and fees are disclosed upfront.

Landlords already pay their agents much more that whatever a tenant is charged. They already shop around for the best value.
This claim that the ban on tenant fees will increase competition is plain obvious BS, but apparently it works on the gullible public.

This cannot be good news for landlords either, as they can also only lose out.

As said, the issue is the lack of housing. It isn't addressed. This announcement is just political.

mrginge

If we assume that Miss Samantha's assessment regarding competition and negative impact on landlords is true (which it isn't), then the response would seem to be -

Tough.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

mrginge wrote: »

If we assume that Miss Samantha's assessment regarding competition and negative impact on landlords is true (which it isn't), then the response would seem to be -

Tough.

Quite. Landlords have had plenty of time to make hay while the sun has shone. Nearly all of the social housing stock has been plundered, unbelievably easy access to credit, even stupid programmes like HUTH that teach you what to do. However, as this has changed the fabric of society and turned millions of people into renters, there was always going to come a time when politics would have to follow.


The only thing I agree with Samantha on is that it is just that - politics - and we need to build more homes.

Miss_Samantha

mrginge wrote: »

then the response would seem to be -

Tough.

True.

Of course you need to realise who are at the end of the line when it comes to passing on costs and being creative with fees: Tenants.

Tough.

marksoton

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Agents are in business to make money like the rest of us. It isn't shoddy to charge the maximum you can, and fees are disclosed upfront.

And thankfully that's no longer an option.

Miss_Samantha

marksoton wrote: »

And thankfully that's no longer an option.

You haven't understood a word of what I wrote, have you?