Can I be charged BOTH Check in and check out fee?

bowlhead99

There's a non-zero time and cost implication for the landlord's business every time someone checks in or out; they expend effort in doing it, and may get an external company to assist. They can enable their business to turn a profit by having the rent at a high level to cover all their operating costs, or they could keep the rent at a lower level but charge explicit fees each time they incur certain types of costs.

A landlord might want to recover £75 of internal and external costs when doing an inventory. Someone paying £495pm rent with a £75 check-out fee is getting a worse deal after a year than if they paid £500pm and no checkout fees. That tenant might think they are being ripped off by 'hiding' the rent in something dressed-up as a fee. And they would say having a tenancy structure with administrative fees around the side is a Bad Thing.

However if they were going to stay for two years, they would prefer to pay the £495 a month and just one £75 checkout fee after 24 months. That seems to me like a fairer way to match what the tenant is paying with the expenses that the landlord genuinely incurs. So I don't think a check out fee is a 'rip off'. It's just a way of structuring the costs so that they are paid by people who cause them to happen (change of tenants) rather than by everyone (a tenant paying a higher ongoing rent with no explicit charging of other administrative workloads).

The tenants will always say they get 'no benefit' from someone preparing the documentation that shows they haven't broken anything; they accept it needs to be done though because that's just common sense. And if it needs doing, would you prefer the landlord recovered the cost from you when your moveout requires him to do the work - or would you prefer he charged you more per month every month just in case this was the month you choose to move out?

00ec25

Robby1988 wrote: »

Jeez, the point I was making here is not whether or not the letting agent was right to take the check out fee, it’s the fact it’s a rip off. There is no justification in my eyes for an agent to charge a tenant who has no further interest in the property for an inspection they carry out on behalf of the landlord. It’s opportunistic money printing and they do it because tenants have no real power to take their business elsewhere.

if your post is simply to rant about what is "fair" then consider this:

- a check IN establishes the condition of the property when the tenants becomes liable for it. It is therefore important that the tenant ensure the inspection is through and correct since it is upon the condition at check in that everything later on is based. On that basis why shouldn't the tenant pay for it since it is for their benefit.

- a check OUT establishes the condition of the property when the tenants leaves it. It is the only thing which determines how much of the tenant's deposit he will get back. It is therefore supremely important for the tenant and directly for their benefit. On that basis why shouldn't the tenant pay for it.

takman

Robby1988 wrote: »

Jeez, the point I was making here is not whether or not the letting agent was right to take the check out fee, it’s the fact it’s a rip off. There is no justification in my eyes for an agent to charge a tenant who has no further interest in the property for an inspection they carry out on behalf of the landlord. It’s opportunistic money printing and they do it because tenants have no real power to take their business elsewhere.

It's not a rip off because it's a cost incurred by the tenant moving out.
As others have said if they didn't charge the fee to the tenant then the landlord would recover the cost in the form of a higher rent and have to estimate how often tenants will leave. This would then result in tenants who stay longer paying a lot more (which i'm also sure you would consider a "rip-off").

It's just like when people go to a restaurant abroad and have to pay to use the toilets and call it a "rip-off" yet in this country the cost of the toilets are included in the prices on the menu even if they don't use them but nobody complains about that being a "rip-off".
As soon as the cost of something is charged as a separate fee then it suddenly becomes a "rip-off" but if everything is included in one price even if you don't benefit from it then everyone is happy. Which to me always seems a bit backwards!