What A Joke - Estate Admin Fees

LKRDN_Morgan

I totally agree OP. Last house I rented the LL needed it back due to a relationship breakdown. The letting agent had the cheek to charge us £175 check out fee. I was under the impression it was only payable if we chose to leave. My mistake of course for not reading the contract properly but to charge the tenant when it's not their choice to leave is something else.

It still winds me up to this day!

MyOnlyPost

Personally I would like to see a radical overhaul of the whole system. I don't think there is anything wrong with fees which are reasonable but some are extortionate and clearly way above cost. I have taken tenants who have failed credit checks, I have even taken a tenant who failed referencing but many letting agents wouldn't even give the landlord the chance to make up his own mind.

Regarding section 21 I would like to see it made easier for a landlord to regain possession under the very narrow confines of non paymment of rent (where a tenant misses 3 consecutive months for instance) or causing serious damage to the property. It shouldn't take months and going to court for a possession order in these circumstances. Conversely I would like to see it made much harder for a landlord to evict a tenant in most other circumstances (I'm sure others can think of exceptions) and certainly if the landlord simply wants the property back. I wouldn't be opposed to a statutory 12 months notice so long as the tenant was respecting the property and paying their rent. I suppose their would have to be a caveat for forced sale by the banks but that should be exceptional circumstances

Kalamazoo

Guest101 wrote: »

Totally see your point, but going to be controversial slightly. I don't actually disagree with LA fees. I think the requirement to have the publicised and upfront was a great idea and I think it works.


I think tenants need to have longer term security and I agree that s.21 should be abolished.


I don't think tenants must use a letting agent, except where they want to have that specific property. Now I know that the government is consulting on fees, and in all likely hood the result will be either an outright ban on fees, with LLs taking the hit, but ultimately an increase in rent. Or fixed fees, whereby the profit element is removed.


to use one of my examples - if apple decide that carphone warehouse will be their sole retailer in the UK, then you must use them if you want an iphone, but you don't need an iphone.


I suspect if they priced it as: £400 for the phone + £400 for us to sell it to you, people would complain, but the figure is just £800

Comparing consumer goods to accommodation - truly the reasoning skills of a chimp

Guest101

Kalamazoo wrote: »

Comparing consumer goods to accommodation - truly the reasoning skills of a chimp

Who are you? What is your point?

If you're here to just make personal attacks, you'll shortly be banned. Make a reasoned argument.

The simple fact is that privately rented accommodation is a consumer and supplier relationship. Don't like it? Buy

Guest101

AFF8879 wrote: »

Well I would say to hang on a bit longer, but letting agent fees were planned to be abolished in the autumn statement last year but there still doesn't appear to be any progress on that front...

There'll be a consultation later this year

Kalamazoo

Guest101 wrote: »

Who are you? What is your point?

If you're here to just make personal attacks, you'll shortly be banned. Make a reasoned argument.

The simple fact is that privately rented accommodation is a consumer and supplier relationship. Don't like it? Buy

The fact it is a consumer/supplier relationship (which pretty much everything where goods/services changes hands for money is, so youre not really proving anything by repeating that mantra) does not make it remotely comparable to the supply and purchase of consumer goods like mobile phones.

One concerns the supply of near limitless quantities of non essential products that span an entire range of price points, providing a huge range of specifications.

One provides an essential service, in a limited market with consumers often competing amongst themselves to secure any product (let alone one they'd choose), where the ability to choose a price point or level of quality for the service rendered lies almost entirely with the supplier.

Im frankly flabbergasted that a supposed sentient human being is wilfully failing to comprehend the difference between the two, but then the cynic in me wonders if you're just making stupid comments for garner attention.

MyOnlyPost

Kalamazoo wrote: »

One provides an essential service, in a competitive and limited market, where the ability to choose a price point or level of quality for the service rendered lies almost entirely with the supplier. .

This argument makes no sense. If it is a competitive market then the market dictates the price point, not the supplier. Suppliers can only dictate price in an uncompetitve market or by collusion (illegal). As for level of service, then as with any other service it is down to the buyer to do their due dilligence and research who they are buying off. You wouldn't buy your gas supply from some bloke on t'interweb just because he was cheaper than going to an established company without first doing some basic background checks.

Kalamazoo

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

This argument makes no sense. If it is a competitive market then the market dictates the price point, not the supplier. Suppliers can only dictate price in an uncompetitve market or by collusion (illegal). As for level of service, then as with any other service it is down to the buyer to do their due dilligence and research who they are buying off. You wouldn't buy your gas supply from some bloke on t'interweb just because he was cheaper than going to an established company without first doing some basic background checks.

Apologies, it was poorly worded.


I meant the competition exists for the consumer within the rental market. There is a limited supply of 'product' (in most areas), which means the supplier has complete control over the how they choose to market, knowing they have a captive audience who need to purchase this essential service.


Its entirely incomparable to the purchase of consumer goods like mobile phones, where the consumer has the choice of how much to pay and for what product.

MyOnlyPost

Kalamazoo wrote: »

Apologies, it was poorly worded.


I meant the competition exists for the consumer within the rental market. There is a limited supply of 'product' (in most areas), which means the supplier has complete control over the how they choose to market, knowing they have a captive audience who need to purchase this essential service.

Ok that is clearer and yes the excess competition for housing with the limited supply in some areas is exacerbating the housing crisis, and yet a pro business governemnt is actively deterring some investors from entering the market. Some people may agree with the new tax changes regarding BTL, I don't. However I think most people could agree their should be some exemptions where an investor restores a property that is unmortgageable or converts a dwelling to a quality HMO as this increases housing stock. I would happily pay cash for a house, renovate and rent it out if I could then free up my equity to do the same again without incurring these new extra tax burdens, but I can't so I don't anymore..

Kalamazoo wrote: »

Its entirely incomparable to the purchase of consumer goods like mobile phones, where the consumer has the choice of how much to pay and for what product.

I do agree with this, as a landlord you are responsible for housing someone and this should't be taken lightly. As a tenant you need to be fully aware of the commitment you are making when you take on a tenancy and both of these are far greater than buying and selling any other services. I think there is a lot of good tenants and a lot of good landlords but the media focus is always on the worst of both groups. Regarding the OP, it doesn't matter who pays the fees up front on a new tenancy, the tenant will always pay them eventually in the form of increased rent which will almost certainly cost more than up front fees

Guest101

Kalamazoo wrote: »

The fact it is a consumer/supplier relationship (which pretty much everything where goods/services changes hands for money is, so youre not really proving anything by repeating that mantra) does not make it remotely comparable to the supply and purchase of consumer goods like mobile phones. - Just because the quantity of available stock is different does not change the basic principle. In many ways people feel they 'need' a mobile phone, which is why I used the example. I could happily use utilities or transport if you prefer.

One concerns the supply of near limitless quantities of non essential products that span an entire range of price points, providing a huge range of specifications. - Housing equally spans a huge range of quality and price. From 1 bedroom 'rent a room' style accommodation to penthouse suites in the square mile

One provides an essential service, in a competitive and limited market, where the ability to choose a price point or level of quality for the service rendered lies almost entirely with the supplier. - I love the use of the word essential, as if it's the landlord's duty and obligation to house the perspective tenant. The price is set by the market, if one supplier chose to bring down the price, others would have to follow suit, that is the basis of the free market economy.

Im frankly flabbergasted that a supposed sentient human being is wilfully failing to comprehend the difference between the two, but then the cynic in me wonders if you're just making stupid comments for garner attention.

The difference if your perception that this is some kind of social service which must be provided.

Kalamazoo wrote: »

Apologies, it was poorly worded.


I meant the competition exists for the consumer within the rental market. There is a limited supply of 'product' (in most areas) - that's how supply and demand work , which means the supplier has complete control over the how they choose to market, knowing they have a captive audience who need to purchase this essential service. - So? This issue would be resolved to some degree by abolishing s.21


Its entirely incomparable to the purchase of consumer goods like mobile phones, where the consumer has the choice of how much to pay and for what product.

Really, you can choose how much you pay? can you let me know what shop, I'd like to get an iphone (read 3 bed house) for £5 (read £x)