PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Tenant Fees - Infuriating
Comments
-
I'm talking about the vast diufference in opportunity for basic living standards between the rich and poor.
I never said it is.
I've also never said anyone is at fault. In fact, thats precisely my point, isn't it! Just because some vague tiny possibility exists that people might be able to catch the right piece of luck doesn't make everything fair.
Your definition of fair is that the same obstacles are in everybody's way, ignoring the fact that everybody's capability to overcome those obstacles is completely different. My definition is that everybody should have the same recourse to things to help them overcome those obstacles. Some people will still manage further/higher/faster goals - but everybody has to be able to accomplish enough to keep living.
No, there really isn't; thats the point I'm attempting to make. A chance exists, and it effectively comes down to exactly that, luck. Thats fine when it comes to striking it rich, but not when it comes to being able to live a decent life.
no, no it's not. You're still only prepared to focus on people who have refused to help themselves at some point. Aside from the obvious callousness of cutting people off based on singular decisions made as a youth, you're still avoiding the very real issue that many people are in these situations through absolutely no fault of their own.
If you are talking about rich people are you referring to the ones who inherited money or the ones who came to this country as refugees and worked hard? There are some extremely rich business people in the UK who arrived with nothing. Luck has got nothing to do with how much they are worth. It was all down to sheer hard work. If you can become very wealthy having arrived in the UK with nothing it therefore follows that anyone can do this.
Minimum wage jobs buy more things in some parts of the country than others.
Many or the people you are accusing of becoming landlords were forced to buy somewhere to live when young or continue to live with their parents. There was very little rented property available because the rent acts had reduced the number of landlords. However you couldn't get a council house either so if you wanted to move out of your parents house you had to buy something. Choice was very limited. There is more choice now. Some people bought a house and couldn't afford to furnish it. A bed would be a mattress on the floor with no carpets. When you can remember situations like this it is easy to see that today everyone is better off. Central heating and night storage heaters are a relatively new invention. To compare like with like you have got to be able to provide examples of people living in houses, with no central heating or night storage heaters, only a coal fire in one room, no carpets no furniture and no beds only mattresses. They didn't have cars and only used public transport and they didn't eat out. This is what people had to do years ago to get somewhere to live. If you were really lucky you might get a council house but council houses were not available to anyone who wanted one. There was private rented accommodation but due to the rent acts people did not move and when property did become vacant landlords tended to sell it.
You are complaining about life not being fair. Life isn't fair but it is what you make of it.0 -
Blimey, £700?!
I'd have tried negotiating with the LL and got him to ditch the rogue agent and deal direct if you have their good will.
We should have adopted Scotland's systems by now.
Over £700...and the terms were crazy. e.g. pay first month's rent at the same time you pay for referencing - if you fail referencing, a deduction is made for every day the property has been "off the market" whilst referencing was taking place. So if referencing took a month and then referencing agency decided you failed (worst case scenario) then you'd lose the entire month's rent you'd paid on top of the credit referencing and application fees (yes, there was a separate "application fee").
Unfortunately the landlord was an elderly lady and I am fairly sure the letting agents were bullying her to a degree. On the day I was initially meant to view the property with the letting agent I arrived late (road closure necessitated long detour). Letting agent cancelled the appointment, but the landlady lives on site (totally separate building) and agreed to show me around but said she would have to be careful as the letting agent didn't like her showing people round? She sounded very nervous about it, poor thing.0 -
WolfSong2000 wrote: »Over £700...and the terms were crazy. e.g. pay first month's rent at the same time you pay for referencing - if you fail referencing, a deduction is made for every day the property has been "off the market" whilst referencing was taking place. So if referencing took a month and then referencing agency decided you failed (worst case scenario) then you'd lose the entire month's rent you'd paid on top of the credit referencing and application fees (yes, there was a separate "application fee").
Unfortunately the landlord was an elderly lady and I am fairly sure the letting agents were bullying her to a degree. On the day I was initially meant to view the property with the letting agent I arrived late (road closure necessitated long detour). Letting agent cancelled the appointment, but the landlady lives on site (totally separate building) and agreed to show me around but said she would have to be careful as the letting agent didn't like her showing people round? She sounded very nervous about it, poor thing.
Fairly sure those fees would be unlawful and easily challenged0 -
Fairly sure those fees would be unlawful and easily challenged
I did speak to a lawyer who just said that as long as they're upfront with their costs they can charge what they like as it's a free market. I had said to Sanderson's from the outset that I was happy to pay reasonable fees - I appreciate they are a business and need to make money - but I felt that the fees did not reflect the actual cost of the work involved (plus a modest profit). They dragged their feet and agreed to lower fees to £420, then dragged their feet some more and insisted that I buy insurance to cover the landlord's goods (I pointed out that this could cause problems as landlord has already insured her goods, so insurance companies could just point the finger at each other)....then more unnecessary delays suddenly deciding to change the criteria needed for me to pass the referencing (they wanted proof of a £33k net income rather than the £33k gross they'd initially said). It all just turned into a massive mess and basically fell apart (I suspect the landlord got fed up with all the delays). I know for a fact they lied to me at least once (saying they had spoken to the landlord who had insisted on insurance - I'd spoken to the landlord myself the previous evening and they'd said no such thing). Sandersons are a nasty piece of work.0 -
WolfSong2000 wrote: »I did speak to a lawyer who just said that as long as they're upfront with their costs they can charge what they like as it's a free market. I had said to Sanderson's from the outset that I was happy to pay reasonable fees - I appreciate they are a business and need to make money - but I felt that the fees did not reflect the actual cost of the work involved (plus a modest profit). They dragged their feet and agreed to lower fees to £420, then dragged their feet some more and insisted that I buy insurance to cover the landlord's goods (I pointed out that this could cause problems as landlord has already insured her goods, so insurance companies could just point the finger at each other)....then more unnecessary delays suddenly deciding to change the criteria needed for me to pass the referencing (they wanted proof of a £33k net income rather than the £33k gross they'd initially said). It all just turned into a massive mess and basically fell apart (I suspect the landlord got fed up with all the delays). I know for a fact they lied to me at least once (saying they had spoken to the landlord who had insisted on insurance - I'd spoken to the landlord myself the previous evening and they'd said no such thing). Sandersons are a nasty piece of work.
Not disagreeing, just to say, find a new solicitor- there is plenty of legislation which prevents such contracts from being enforced0 -
I don't think such agreement is unlawful as long as the criteria for passing the referencing are clearly stated beforehand along with the condition that money will be charged only if these criteria are not met.0
-
Sure.
You see life isn't fair. Now that we can accept such a basic principle, in which no one owes you ( the overall 'you', not specifically 'naf') a living. Life is what you make of it.
Everyone has access to an education, all the way up to uni. If you choose not to make the most of that, that's not my fault.
It's not my fault that the only jobs available are minimum wage, but even then the govt tips up low incomes. ( via numerous benefits ).
Can you point out where the state directly keeps people in poverty? To clarify my point: there is a sizeable tax free allowance, child benefit, c/w tax credits. Housing benefit. Council tax benefit. Free education Free healthcare. Social housing. - I think the poor are fairly well supported.
If NMW is all that's suitable then those roles are available across the country. So travel would not be required
Going to uni isn't free. It's accessible if you can afford it. Not everyone can get a student loan.
Thing is to go and work somewhere far from your area you have to travel which costs money and you need to find accommodation before you start working and get your first wages so I guess you have no idea of what you're talking about and for your information, single people under 35 with no kids and no disability get 0 help with housing if they're poor, unless they make do with living in shared accommodation with strangers or in utter dumps.
We are not treated equally by the system because single working guy/woman with no kids and healthy with low paying job is at the bottom of the list when it comes to help despite not having brought into this world kids they can't afford to raise decently (sorry for the rant but if I had a kid now I'd have a nice council house and I don't want to have a kid as a meal ticket).0 -
BadBehaviour wrote: »Going to uni isn't free. It's accessible if you can afford it. Not everyone can get a student loan. - most people can.
Thing is to go and work somewhere far from your area you have to travel which costs money and you need to find accommodation before you start working and get your first wages so I guess you have no idea of what you're talking about - oh really? A room in a shared house requires very few checks, and deposits are usually small. A train ticket is not beyond the reach. and for your information, single people under 35 with no kids and no disability get 0 help with housing if they're poor, unless they make do with living in shared accommodation with strangers or in utter dumps. thats the rate which is paid. Why should it be higher? You can get more if you pay for it, but why should I pay for you to have a house to yourself?
We are not treated equally by the system because single working guy/woman with no kids and healthy with low paying job is at the bottom of the list when it comes to help - because you need the least help! Seriously?! despite not having brought into this world kids they can't afford to raise decently (sorry for the rant but if I had a kid now I'd have a nice council house and I don't want to have a kid as a meal ticket).
Nor should you, but how is that an 'unfair' system. Kids have more needs than you.0 -
I paid near to 1.5k in fees (including processing of a guarantor) in the South West plus 1 and 1/2 months rent in advance to get into my last flat only to be given a section 21 just 6 months later. This was after the landlord decided to sell as he couldn't maintain the property to habitable standards (damp and mould everywhere) so a revenge eviction pretty much. & so I had to pay just over 1k again to find another place. Now a year later I am having to pay £125 for just two documents to be printed out to renew the contract. All lining the Letting Agents pockets. & sadly, in this area, this amount is not unusual. So yeah, it could be worse, basically.0
-
Nor should you, but how is that an 'unfair' system. Kids have more needs than you.
Guest, again, you have offered nothing of value.
Never one to offer advice or assistance - you giving ''your opinion'' is more often than not just an excuse for you to be rude.
Why don't you just stop.The opposite of what you know...is also true0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards