Loophole in the new Tenancy Act 2019 fees? Cheeky La?!

Herbalus

Simonr66 wrote: »

But you only chose to quote a small section of their advertised terms/fees when they clearly also advertise those that are also relevant to the new legislation so by doing this you were looking for an excuse to say a particular agency group were trying to exploit a loop hole when in actual fact they weren't.

I think you haven't read clearly enough.

The OP has confirmed this isn't "Countrywide" but is a group that operates nationally. The OP quoted a small section of their advertised terms because those were the parts that needed clarification. As we don't know which estate agent this is, we can't possibly know that "they clearly also advertise those that are also relevant to the new legislation"

My reading is that the LA possibly copied all of the commercial tenancy fees onto the residential section by mistake.

System

Herbalus wrote: »

I think you haven't read clearly enough.

The OP has confirmed this isn't "Countrywide" but is a group that operates nationally. The OP quoted a small section of their advertised terms because those were the parts that needed clarification. As we don't know which estate agent this is, we can't possibly know that "they clearly also advertise those that are also relevant to the new legislation"

My reading is that the LA possibly copied all of the commercial tenancy fees onto the residential section by mistake.

Nope quite clearly read and understood, I looked at a number of the countrywide brands and they all had similar fees, different formatting though.


The OPs post came across as an accusation and implied an agent was trying to get round the fee ban by doing something illegal. The Countrywide brands are either ARLA accredited, RICS regulated or both so I very much double they would get something like the new fee legislation wrong considering Countrywide have a massive compliance department.

Herbalus

Simonr66 wrote: »

Nope quite clearly read and understood, I looked at a number of the countrywide brands and they all had similar fees, different formatting though.

The OPs post came across as an accusation and implied an agent was trying to get round the fee ban by doing something illegal. The Countrywide brands are either ARLA accredited, RICS regulated or both so I very much double they would get something like the new fee legislation wrong considering Countrywide have a massive compliance department.

I have put in bold where I feel that you haven't read clearly and understood. Copied below is the clarification from the OP that it is not countrywide or any other countrywide company. OP meant the country operates across the country.

KcEliMa wrote: »

(My point that it is a countrywide company meant its a national company, not countrywide themselves)

System

Herbalus wrote: »

I have put in bold where I feel that you haven't read clearly and understood. Copied below is the clarification from the OP that it is not countrywide or any other countrywide company. OP meant the country operates across the country.

Point taken and I Concede however it still doesn't change the fact that if someone is going to challenge a company then just taking a section of the terms and not all of them to create a narrative is wrong.


The Op could also have been more forthcoming with the information by naming the company concerned. Having looked at some of the Countrwide Bands however the terms that were posted did match one of them exactly so yes could also have been a Countrywide Brand.

Owain_Moneysaver

I have raised this with Shelter and they have advised me that

If the letting is a tenancy - ie the renter has exclusive possession of their flat/room - then it’s a non-assured tenancy if the landlord lives in another part of the same building. That would be the case if you’ve got a converted building which is divided into self-contained flats (or into flats where the renters have exclusive possession of at least one room, even though there is some sharing of facilities); the landlord lives in one of them; and the tenant lives in another flat. In that case, it seems that the Tenant Fees Act doesn’t apply. This exception does not apply where the building is a purpose-built block of flats.

But if the occupier does not have exclusive possession, the letting is a licence – that can happen where the landlord provides services which involve the landlord or his staff/agents being able to enter the flat/room at will; or where the landlord has the right to move people from room to room; or, most commonly, where a person has a room in the landlord’s own home and shares facilities with the landlord, ie, as a lodger. Because those occupiers are licensees, they do have the protection of the Tenant Fees Act.

That is a real anomaly, that a tenant of a resident landlord is worse off than a lodger with a resident landlord.