What A Joke - Estate Admin Fees

Kalamazoo

Nothing you posted there has refuted any of my points. In fact, your replies suggest you didn't actually read anything that was written, or you have very real difficulties in comprehension.


I don't know whether you're failing to understand the very simple concept at play here (the differing ability of the consumer to shop around within their budget across the two industries) or you're wilfully ignoring it and introducing straw man arguments to further the ridiculous angle you're taking on the subject. Either way, you don't strike me as someone who is going to offer much in terms of an intelligent discussion here.

Pixie5740

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

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

Yet that didn't happen in Scotland. Perhaps because landlords are in a much stronger position for negotiating with letting agents than tenants.

mattyprice4004

While I disagree with the fees charged when they're really high, it's been like this as long as I can remember - I started letting houses around 6 years ago.

Pixie5740

Guest101 wrote: »

True, I saw that in another post. I suspect that the government will go with my second version, where fees are fixed.


the real problem in all this is s.21 notices. Paying a one off fee for a property, whilst unpalatable, is typical of many countries. But the fact that is effectively forced upon people by landlords (and agents) is the problem.


I think we're perhaps approaching the same problem from two equally valid angles.


To me it's no different than paying for anything else that I want - IE if I want to move I accept there is a cost there.


Whereas you're approaching it from (the equally true point) that people are forced to move and this is an additional cost


- though do correct me if I've misunderstood

Yes some landlords advertise directly but I suspect that they are in the minority. Even landlords who self manage might use a letting agent to find tenants meaning that tenants are statistically far more likely to find a property that will require referencing via a letting agent than not. What I'm getting at is that tenants have less choice which puts them in a weak position. The tenant is shopping around for a home not a letting agent.

MyOnlyPost

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yet that didn't happen in Scotland. Perhaps because landlords are in a much stronger position for negotiating with letting agents than tenants.

I don't live in Scotland or have any knowledge of the Scottish rental market. I also don't know the relevant laws regarding letting in Scotland so can't comment. What I do know is that 1) I would not use an agent who charges my tenants ridiculous fees, I do everything I can to keep my tenants costs to a minimum 2) Other things being equal if those fees were passed on to me I would have to put my rent up to cover them.

Unless the agents stop charging the fees altogether then somehow it is likely the fees will be passed to the tenants in the majority of cases and with the agents taking a cut of the rent the rent will increase by more than the fees would have been so the tenants will be worse off

Guest101

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes some landlords advertise directly but I suspect that they are in the minority. Even landlords who self manage might use a letting agent to find tenants meaning that tenants are statistically far more likely to find a property that will require referencing via a letting agent than not. What I'm getting at is that tenants have less choice which puts them in a weak position. The tenant is shopping around for a home not a letting agent.

That's a good point.


To be honest I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps the Scottish model is best.


Do holding deposits apply in Scotland?

Pixie5740

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I don't live in Scotland or have any knowledge of the Scottish rental market. I also don't know the relevant laws regarding letting in Scotland so can't comment. What I do know is that 1) I would not use an agent who charges my tenants ridiculous fees, I do everything I can to keep my tenants costs to a minimum 2) Other things being equal if those fees were passed on to me I would have to put my rent up to cover them.

Unless the agents stop charging the fees altogether then somehow it is likely the fees will be passed to the tenants in the majority of cases and with the agents taking a cut of the rent the rent will increase by more than the fees would have been so the tenants will be worse off

All tenants in Scotland can be asked to pay is a deposit and rent, that's it. Detailed studies have shown that since letting agent fees for tenants were abolished rents didn't suddenly shoot up and that tenants are not worse off. So I don't understand why people in the rest of the UK keep speculating that rents will soar and that tenants will be worse off when that didn't happen when the fees were made unlawful in very similar rental markets. Market forces such as supply and demand, as well as household income are far more significant drivers in rent level than the fees charged by letting agents.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/834832/6636_Scottish_letting_fees_report_v9.pdf

Pixie5740

Guest101 wrote: »

That's a good point.


To be honest I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps the Scottish model is best.


Do holding deposits apply in Scotland?

Tenants in Scotland cannot be made to pay a holding deposit. Usually when I've been asked to pay a holding deposit it then goes on to contribute towards the security deposit once the tenancy actually starts. For example, say I want to rent somewhere that will be £500 pcm with a security deposit of £500. I am asked to pay a "holding" deposit of £200 whilst I'm referenced then when I go to pick up the keys I pay the £500 in rent and remaining £300 deposit. However, if I were to fail referencing then legally I can ask for my £200 back.

Guest101

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Tenants in Scotland cannot be made to pay a holding deposit. Usually when I've been asked to pay a holding deposit it then goes on to contribute towards the security deposit once the tenancy actually starts. For example, say I want to rent somewhere that will be £500 pcm with a security deposit of £500. I am asked to pay a "holding" deposit of £200 whilst I'm referenced then when I go to pick up the keys I pay the £500 in rent and remaining £300 deposit. However, if I were to fail referencing then legally I can ask for my £200 back.

Do you lose it if you pull out?


Just wonder if there's a bit of a scatter gun approach to properties (apply for 4 you like and then pick one)

Guest101

Kalamazoo wrote: »

Nothing you posted there has refuted any of my points. In fact, your replies suggest you didn't actually read anything that was written, or you have very real difficulties in comprehension.


I don't know whether you're failing to understand the very simple concept at play here (the differing ability of the consumer to shop around within their budget across the two industries) or you're wilfully ignoring it and introducing straw man arguments to further the ridiculous angle you're taking on the subject. Either way, you don't strike me as someone who is going to offer much in terms of an intelligent discussion here.

Yep just a big old thicko here, don't understand these posh words you is usin.


My opinion means nothing, pleeez everyun just listen to kalamazooooo