Tag Archives: landlord advice

Prescribed Information confirmed as having Greater Importance

Posted on by

By Mike Edwards

In July 2011 the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Suurpere v Nice and Nice that inadequate Prescribed Information as required under the Tenancy Deposit Regulations as set out in the Housing Act 2004 and above all in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007 had been issued to the tenant.

In this latest case the Court of Appeal on 6th November 2012 has reached a similar decision and overturned an earlier and incorrect lower court decision. The full details of this decision are awaited but the simple facts are that the tenant had paid a deposit and the Landlord had protected it in one of the approved schemes but he had not given the prescribed information (PI) as required by the Prescribed Information Order 2007. In the Suurpere case there was an agent involved who paid the fine but in this case there was no agent.

The tenant had significant arrears so the Landlord issued proceedings and as is so often the case and where the big danger lies for landlords the tenant counter-claimed that the requirements of the Prescribed Information Order had not been complied with. At the initial hearing the Landlord admitted this ‘offence’ but in defence claimed it didn’t matter as the tenant could easily find the information for themselves. This was exactly the decision in Suurpere – that the tenant should be given the information not have to go searching for it as and when they needed it.

This opinion was strongly emphasised in Suurpere which makes it all the more astonishing that the lower court Judge was persuaded by this argument. That in effect it is the protection of the deposit that matters in TDP cases and that the issuing of the PI is no more than an administrative procedural necessity. So the Landlord claimed the deposit had been protected (which it had) and that the tenant could have gone to the scheme administrator for anything else he wanted to know. The lower Court dismissed the tenant’s claim stating information in the tenancy agreement (scheme details) plus other information the Landlord provided during the Court hearing was enough to comply with the requirements of the Order.

Not surprisingly given such an obvious error at law the tenant appealed and equally unsurprisingly the more learned Court of Appeal disagreed completely with the Landlord and original Judge. It held quite clearly that the giving of the PI amounts to more than just a minor procedural obligation and that the information has  real importance in advising tenants how to get their deposit back and also how they could go to a dispute at no cost to themselves and without the need for litigation on their part.

In effect the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court in Suurpere v Nice (see Nearly Legal report here). The lower Court had not reached a proper judicial evaluation. The Landlord clearly was in breach of the Prescribed Information Order and so the penalties in section 214 The Housing Act 2004 applied. Therefore the Landlord was ordered to return the deposit plus, because the original offence had occurred before The Localism Act 2011 provisions came into effect in April 2012 the mandatory penalty of three times the deposit applied

So the tenant won and his appeal was allowed. Significantly the Court of Appeal has now agreed with the High Court decision in Suurpere that the Prescribed Information a Landlord must serve on the tenant is not some administrative afterthought which simply acts as an accompaniment to deposit protection. It is instead a vital component and one of two parts in the deposit protection process both of which must be fully and correctly completed by the Landlord to discharge his obligations in respect of deposit protection.

Simply to protect the deposit, laudable though that is compared to not protecting it, is insufficient to discharge the obligations. But more importantly this latest binding decision from a Court of Record confirms as was held in Suurpere that Landlords must supply that information themselves and not leave tenants to go searching for it themselves. As in Suurpere simply providing the DPS website address is not enough – the Scheme Terms and Conditions must be printed and attached to the Prescribed Information notice being served.

For the other two schemes there is a leaflet which under their rules it is obligatory to issue. Post Localism Act 2011 if not doing so before landlords and agents should definitely obtain a signed copy of a suitably endorsed PI form as proof that the tenant has indeed received all the information.

All this means that if there was any shred of doubt post Suurpere there is now none whatsoever that the need to comply with the Prescribed Information Order is just as important as the need to place the deposit in the DPS Custodial scheme or insure it through The Dispute Service or my|deposits schemes. The two decisions mean tenants can easily defend a landlord’s section 21 action if they can show the deposit has not been protected OR that the Prescribed Information now have clear means of defending possession actions based on s21 Housing Act 1988 actions or in rent arrears cases. If either has not been completely and correctly completed by the Landlord and if he is unable to prove that if challenged then any s21 notice he has served will fail and in any section 8 action the tenant can counterclaim.

Informed opinion was that this appeal would always fail and that the Lower Court was clearly in error by in effect saying the PI didn’t really matter and if the tenant wanted more information he knew where to find it. But the Landlord was foolish to appeal as the July 2011 Appeal Court decision in Suurpere virtually guaranteed this appeal by the tenant would succeed. So now the Landlord hands over the deposit, plus a x3 penalty and presumably has significant costs.

While agents and Landlords may be irritated by this decision it is the only correct one that could be arrived at, as in Suurpere. Given the detail in the Statute and above all the Prescribed Information Order (2007) it is clear that no matter what Landlords may believe the Prescribed Information always had great significance given the detailed way the information that must be served on the tenant is laid out in the PI Order.

Share

Current Property News: Tenant must be advised correctly or Landlords will pay.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

A Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that Landlords not only need to register Tenants deposit under the Tenants Deposit Protection legislation, but that they must provide Tenants with the Prescribed Information in connection with the scheme the money is protected with, or the courts now have a clear case confirming exactly what will happen should they fail.

Old News

Back in February this year, I confirmed the changes introduced by the Localism Act 2011 which was introduced in April this year. The changes surround not only when protection needed to be registered by, but also what was delivered to the Tenant in how we register deposits.

PI

The Prescribed Information is what was under review in this case, after a Landlord had failed to supply the data to the Tenant even though the deposit was protected. In fact in the original court decision, he thought the courts agreed with his stance, that the purpose of the legislation was to protect the money and that had been achieved. The Tenant on appeal, has won on the basis that protection MUST be accompanied by the information surrounding the Tenants rights and how to act to protect his money.

Fine.

The penalty is both full refund of the initial deposit and a fine to the value of three times this same amount. This is of course significant and places before anybody who felt otherwise, that the need to protect deposits is only half of the intended actions required under the act. But it is not just when the deposit is initially received that action needs to be taken.

End of fixed term.

Under the Localism Act, it also became clear that in clarifying how the legislation should work, new documents need to be given with every new Tenancy. This means, when a Tenancy ends its initial fixed term, new information needs to be given. The fine for failing to do so, is as was awarded in this case, three times the deposit.

Solution.

There is only one! Do things the right way to start with, understand the requirements and put in place a system that ensures all Tenants receive the data at the start of the Tenancy, as well as with any new agreement signed. This alone should be easy, if a Tenant is signing an agreement, hand out the scheme rules surrounding the deposit. If you then add a system that does the same when an agreement becomes periodic (Treated as a new agreement in the Localism Act) and ensures Tenants get the updated information at this time, you will be covered. But always, if in doubt? Ask!

Share

Current Property News: Free Carbon Monoxide Detectors!

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

Two items of news from the last week have caught our attention at Castle Estates in Stafford and that is news surrounding Carbon Monoxide Detectors. The first was the change is the Landlords Gas Safety Certificate to include inspection of flues running through voids and now it has been made compulsory in Northern Ireland for all new homes.

Swift progress.

Both of these moves are positive forces in the battle against this silent killer and whilst the change to include hidden flues within the Gas Safety Inspection is going to cause many problems before the end of the first year whilst the changes take effect (Many, in blocks of flats, will require access through areas which do not belong to the premises in question) the change in Northern Ireland is a move to have them as standard practise in all properties whether rented or owner occupied.

Balance in favour of rented property.

For many years as a Letting Agent I have known just how Tenants are better protected than owner occupiers, who would normally never dream of having a Gas Safety Inspection. Because I did think it a good idea, I found a Gas fire in a house I purchased was not vented at all when fitted, indeed the chimney breast was open and allowed fumes to pass directly in to the main bedroom through fitted drawers. I could have gone to bed and never woken up if we had not found the problem.

Good progress.

But the other point about Carbon Monoxide Detectors is that they are such a good idea! Because of this, as an Agent who likes to ensure we do things the right way, we are going to issue a free Carbon Monoxide detector for every new Landlord and change of Tenant.

Correct usage.

Of course one important matter is to ensure they are fitted and used. We have decided to provide one that is portable and allows the Tenant to have it in the lounge when the fire is on and then taken to the bedroom when they turn in for the night. This way we will be able to ensure that they are working from day one. The only maintenance being the replacement of the battery!

Law of the Land.

What must be remembered is the change in law came about because of a death and any move to reduce the risk has to be a good one. This is why we and our Plumbers believe it will not be long before it becomes Law for all properties. By providing them free of charge, we will remain ahead of the game and ensure this is one more area where are doing the best possible for our Landlords.

Share

Current Property News: CAB Failing to understand Tenants Deposit Scheme.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

“The problem is they just do not realise that there are decent honest Landlords and Agents out there!” So said a fellow Letting Agent who just happened to be in my office this morning, when speaking about the Citizens Advice Bureau and the problems she had found in dealing with them. So it seems a regular problem is happening for other Agents, which does nothing to resolve the issue, but does make you realise that CAB are not perhaps the all knowing all seeing force that they convey, when demanding changes in the way we run our Industry.

Regular item.

In fact, it was only last week that I referred to their campaign to remove all Tenants fees, and support for a new five year agreement, but how can they be taken seriously as a champion of the Tenant when (taking our evidence from two conversations with them this morning) it is clear they do not even understand how, for example, the Tenants Deposit Scheme works!

Phone calls.

What happened this morning was an initial call from a Lady at the CAB asking why we were not returning a Tenants deposit (The Tenant having been at the house for many years) What she was not aware of was that the Deposit was not being refunded because of cigarette burns, yellowing paintwork caused by smoking, general untidiness and cleaning requirements. This in a house where the Tenant had been warned about the consequences when we carried out our Property visits of smoking inside.

Not aware.

The problem lay with the Lady not being aware of how the DPS (Our preferred Deposit organisation) works. So we had to advise them of what would happen and how the claim would go to adjudication as both parties could not agree. The Tenant stance was one of ‘but I have always paid my rent’ which of course was not acceptable.

Problem compounded!

Lo and behold, not an hour later, a second person from the CAB phoned and asked for the Tenants DPS reference number. Now for those who do not know, DPS will only give the Tenants reference number to the Tenant, but we would expect CAB to be aware of this at least, as it is such a basic rule of the system. Instead, we had to explain again how the system worked and be spoken to as if we were being obstructive in how we were dealing with the matter. This is unacceptable and speaks volumes about the manner in which CAB view Landlords and Agents.

Who knew!

The fact is, as a professional Agency, we pride ourselves on carrying out our affairs to the letter of the Law. The fact seems to be that our Tenant, who we had of course already the procedure explained to him, could not find anybody with the knowledge at the CAB to advice him well at all. The phone calls of course ended up, providing they were relayed correctly, with the same advice we had already passed on, but while I am of course aware that the CAB do a very good job in advising the public, it seems they need some training on what is now a basic staple of Tenant law, because what should have happened when the Tenant reported his situation in the first place to the CAB was an answer of, ‘Yes, that’s right!’

Review.

As a matter of course, we review every situation where we are in communication with organisations who act for others, whether it is another Agent, Solicitor or organisations such as the CAB. In doing so in this case we were satisfied we did our job correctly. The only question was one of language and translation, but as I have stated, the Tenant was long standing and we had held many conversation with him over the years and we are left in do doubt that the problem was not one of miscomprehension, rather a Tenant who did not get what he wanted, feeling he could get help from others. It is a pity we were spoken to by the CAB in such a poor way when what we did was correct and I just hope that in relaying the conversation our Tenant was advised that we are correct in our dealings on his behalf!

Share

Property Landlord advice: Shelter idea not practical, Tenants need their own control.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

I posted a Blog a couple of weeks ago about what encourages a Tenant to stay longer in property and the answer both backed by the facts about the length of time our Tenants stay and what the Castle Estates group confirm, is the need for them to have confidence in their position. This involves allowing them to have control of their agreement by NOT being tied down to a new agreement every year.

Reasoning.

It is worth repeating quickly what this means. Tenant’s who are asked to sign a new agreement every year, are by doing so actually being asked a simple question – Do I want to be tied down for another year? In effect, they have their flexibility taken away from them. Instead what we believe in is allowing the contract to role on month by month (Periodic) and handing the control (when they wish to give notice) over to the Tenant. The actual reality is that Tenants stay longer when they do not feel pressured.

Shelter proposal.

Shelter feel that the market needs a five year agreement and I agree with William Jordan of Jordans Rentals (in his piece in Property Drum) that Shelter are approaching the issue from the wrong point. I do not know many Tenants who would agree to sign a five year agreement; in fact I would never recommend advertising a property as available on a five year agreement as it would greatly reduce the interest. What Shelter has missed is that it is not security people wish for, it is flexibility!

Moving on.

It is because Tenants want to be able to move when it suits them, not the opposite and as for Landlords giving Tenants notice to sell the house etc, well it is my experience that this happens very infrequently. Rather, it is when a Tenant gives notice in by far the majority of cases that a Landlord may make a decision to remove the property from the market. Also, it cannot be forgotten that we act for Landlords as their agent and this is a legal fact that cannot be ignored. But if a Tenant wanted a five year agreement and the Landlord was happy, this can already be arranged by using agreements available now, so why change?

Fees.

But there is another area which I alluded to in my original post which also needs to be addressed and this is where Shelter has a point. Too many Agents use the new agreement stance as an income stream by charging the Tenant for every new agreement signed. This has three real time implications. Firstly, they are taking advantage of the Tenant and reducing their upfront Landlord fees. OK for Landlords, but, Secondly, this gives credence to the Campaign waged by both Shelter and CAB to remove all Tenant fees (as, may I remind everybody, is already the case in Scotland) and long term will not do Landlords any favours, just to take short term advantage of Tenants.

Landlords pay costs.

Thirdly, by allowing Tenants to stay under a periodic agreement resulting in Tenants staying longer in the house, in reality, if (and when) a Tenant leaves because of being asked to sign a contract extension, it is the Landlord who is put at risk in having an empty property between Tenancies and losing out on rent, even if this is only for two weeks between Tenants!

Conclusion.

These are the reasons I put to why Shelter are approaching the matter from the wrong end, systems develop and patterns emerge because of the way the market takes them – market forces at work. That some see an opportunity to take advantage is, in my humble opinion, what needs to be dealt with here. Agents can be accommodating and property is available already long term and we are of course asked the question at times, but in reality, flexibility is the answer, not longer agreements.

There is more to follow on this subject and I will be adding to and commenting on what is currently a very live debate very soon!

Share

Current Property News: Landlords facing gas supply cuts through new regulations.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

It is very rarely that I print a headline designed to make people stop, but this is one. Following a criminal case into a death arising from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, a new test has been added to the Gas safety Certificate for Tenants concerning the inspection of joints in the flu where they pass through voids with no access. Simply put, it a joint cannot be accessed, it will fail. The consequences are a request to cut off the Gas supply and all the problems of a Landlord failing to provide space and water heating until the problem is corrected.

Immediate action.

This is a situation that needs immediate action, because it soon becomes clear that where problems occur, especially if property is in a block of leasehold flats for example. Therefore, all of our staff, and especially staff who carry out our three monthly visits, will be educated to understand where problems exist and highlight them as soon as possible.

Extent of problem.

What needs to be realised here, is not just which boiler flues may cause concern, but also the length of time that will be needed to correct the problem. As Letting Agents, we are well aware of how problems do occur during a Gas Safety Inspection, but 99 times out of 100 the work is completed on the day, or at the very worst the following day. That inspection hatches may need to be fitted points out just how long the work could take, before a system can be given the green light.

Spotted early.

This is why we are looking now and not waiting for the problem to occur. It is what we need to do as an Agent and where a potential problem exists we will supply the Tenant with a carbon Monoxide detector as soon as we are aware. We are also Block Managing Agents and being aware of where the responsibility lies, we will be advising all of our Leaseholders to review the situation and check for themselves. Finally, we will write to all of our Landlords and make them aware of the changes and implications.

Best advice.                 

There will be much more detail in the fall out over the introduction of these important and wide reaching changes. We are aware of one Landlord who owns a block of flats, who has had to fit inspection hatches in the living room of eight properties to comply. But more than anything else is the importance of ensuring a Tenant does not lose supply and heating for any length of time. One thing for sure is that a Tenant’s permission would need to be sought to allow the gas supply to be turned off, and without permission the Landlord is left in no man’s land with a system which cannot be licensed. Nobody would want this scenario to result in anybody’s death, but it is not a scenario I am going to allow to develop and this is why we are addressing it now.

Leasehold.

The Leasehold property owner faces an even worse scenario, as it may be the shared element of their building that hides the flue and then permission will need to be sought before any works can be carried out! This is another scenario that could take several weeks to be resolved and another reason why we are surveying our blocks for problems now, rather than wait for the problem to occur. We will do everything we can through being pro-active to ensure another tragedy does not occur under our Management.

Conclusion.

As a property owner, I am able to look at the action from both angles and as owners I can only recommend you do the same, or at least ask your property professional what they are doing on your behalf. One thing is sure, if nothing is done and your property comes under those that will fail, a whole new set of problems will occur and at that stage they may not be under your control!

Share

Current Property news: Increased Student fees biting deep for Student Landlords.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

I guess everybody wondered what the effect of the new style Student fees would have and reports have abounded supporting both sides of the fence. What cannot be denied are hard facts and in Stafford there is no doubt that Students have looked differently for their accommodation needs and because of the reduction in numbers, several Landlords have found themselves with no takers for their Student accommodation.

Change of use.

Of course at this time of year it is clear if nobody has come forward yet, then they are hardly likely too for the academic year that has just started and I have had three difficult conversations with Landlords about what options they have in their properties at present. Of course change to family let has been the recommendation on each occasion, but strangely this problem has not occurred in what we have found this year.

No vacancies!

We manage a large purpose built block in Stafford with 68 rooms spread between 14 flats. Our numbers are slightly down on last year, but have held up far better when compared to what seems to be happening in the traditional Houses of Multiple Occupation. Why? Well the cost is less and a Warden is present as well as private room and en-suite facilities. Add its location next door to the main Stafford College and perhaps we have the answers. But because our occupation is still high this is why I suggest they have looked at the market differently.

Market forces.

No doubt there has been a reduction in numbers, because most Student Landlords would manage the property themselves, so if we have seen three empty houses, the Town probably has two dozen! This would represent a marked drop in the overall Student accommodation requirement. But I am also convinced that quality is starting to play a hand as well and it is Market Forces that is driving demand as students search harder for value for money.

Still need for change.

Of course, none of this assists the Landlords of houses that are still empty now, especially if they are looking to move back to Students next year! Some requirements for the general market just do not sit with a more traditional ‘Family’ let. (Not to mention furniture which is hardly ever the best and rarely matching?) Locks on bedroom doors, fire blankets, Card Meters! All of these are better removed and of course rarely can that be done without affecting appearances. But worst of all, that dreaded style of decoration, woodchip wallpaper!

Back to market forces.

I was present in a property yesterday which was very well presented, but had to be honest with Landlords who were already going to see quite a drop in monthly income, from three students to a Family in a 1st floor flat, my advice had to be based on the property they were competing with! Small properties with three types of carpet that can all be seen from most of the rooms will not be well received when judged against the common fashion of using the same carpet throughout. It is comparing against other property that has to be the benchmark.

Conclusion.

The bottom line is in most cases lots of improvements need to be made and cost is always going to be an issue, but to then change back again is going to be a double whammy as for example, hardly anybody has storage room for furniture and would therefore have to buy new. Ironically it could be that very change that might attract Students in a market being driven by services and quality as I believe it now is. Either way, tired or poor accommodation will continue to struggle and the next two years could be a very hard challenge as more Students drop off after three years and the intake continues to fall!

Share

Property Landlord advice: Inventory a must for ALL rented property.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

We just as other Letting Agents must also be finding, have Landlords who are wishing to keep costs down to a minimum in these difficult times when we are all finding pressure on our margins. However, there are some areas that just do not justify cutting corners and the Inventory is one such area.

Deposit disputes in Landlords favour.

There have now been many cases of claims against Tenant deposits that have been successful, purely because of both a well written inventory and sufficient photographic evidence to back up our claim. The Tenants Deposit dispute system itself, after just one year in operation, warned Landlords that the biggest reason they were losing claims was because of an insufficient inventory.

Why?

Explained in the simplest terms, if you wish to claim against a Tenant for painting a wall black during a Tenancy without permission, if you cannot confirm that it was not black at the beginning of the Tenancy, you will lose. Similarly, if you wish to claim decoration allowed was done badly, you would also lose unless you could prove that the decoration at the start of a Tenancy was in good order. We have posted before about the importance and it is explained well in this Blog by Craig Smith

Photographic proof.

Of course photos play a massive part in this, as a house correctly recorded can easily be shown in its original condition, but that does not mean a well written version should not accompany photographs. If a written inventory confirms no stains on a carpet and there are no specific photographs close enough to confirm general level of dirt, this as well as photos confirming the current state and condition should (and have) proven to be sufficient. But of course, if you have both, then no problem should exist.

Cookers and sinks.

Cookers and sinks are the two items that cause most issues, and with experience, we know to ensure they are well photographed at the start and the end of Tenancy. (Only just in front of Gardens where the same rules apply) We have had occasions where even faced with the before and after photographs, Tenants have insisted on allowing the arbitration service to decide, but whilst this is their right and nowadays more common, we have always achieved the correct result on behalf of our Landlords.

Do not cut corners.

All of this explains why we encourage Landlords to have our Inventory as part of their Tenant check in. Of course Fully Managed properties always receive this service, so my comments are better aimed at Landlords who have either always, or in an attempt to cut costs have now decided to manage their property themselves. In the long run this will pay for itself.

Always at the house.

 It is also one of the main reasons why when checking tenants in to their new home, it should always happen at the house itself. Too many times lately we hear of Tenant’s being checked in at the Agents office. I would ask the question how an inventory can be relied upon if you do not go through it with the Tenant at the property.  If at the end of the Tenancy your Tenant objects to charges, it would be very easy for them to state the inventory was never checked in their presence. A risk I would not wish to take on behalf of my Landlords!

Share

Property Landlord advice: Good Management means Tenants stay longer.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

One of the regular roles I undertake is contacting Landlords when Tenants give notice to leave their rented property. This is of course a worrying time for Landlords as nobody, me included, wants the risk of the property being empty when in by far the majority of cases the sitting Tenant has been settled for some time and we know they are looking after the house and paying the rent. A change of Tenant is always a stressful time for Landlords.

No change please.

So why do something that makes a Tenant think about moving? This was a thought that came to my mind when reading a report by David Salisbury, the Chairman of the National Landlords Association in the lettings section of Property Drum. The point he raised, about Tenants staying longer, along with rising instances of arrears is one that touches on my last Blog about Tenant charges, because some practises by Agents encourage Tenants to move on by making them feel uncomfortable in their role.

Tenant fees.

Practises that make a Tenant review their position cannot always be avoided, such as rent increases, which during our annual review are being looked at more and more as Tenants do stay longer in their homes. That does not mean we should avoid increases, all we can do is be fair which we always advise. But what can be avoided are unnecessary charges and in particular charging for and insisting upon a new agreement every year.

Agent practise and excuse.

You can tell we do not advocate this practise as the reason given, that it gives the Landlord security, actually backfires with the knowledge that more people move as a result of being badly treated (in their eyes yes, but after all it is their decision) We are also aware both locally and Nationally through discussion with other Castle Estates offices that even if Tenants do not move at that time, their perception changes as they see themselves being charged unfairly and then do move as soon as they can.

Consequences.

Now I know from experience that it is far better to have a happy Tenant in your home than an unhappy one. What care used be taken may not be so forthcoming when a Tenant feels aggrieved by the way they are treated and I know this personally as an Agent, Landlord and Tenant. The wider picture is far more serious for Landlords and another reason, when I have been aware of the moves by the CBA and Shelter to have Tenant fees scrapped by Law for the last Ten Years, why we do not charge Tenants additional fees that are not required. There is no doubt that such charges will be central to any campaign to enforce any change of Law.

Arrears.

This is one area where I can both understand the trend and also disagree with it at the same time, for as Agents who use a professional Referencing Agent we know how much more difficult it is to find Tenants who pass without additional requirements (Guarantors, larger deposits) But, to use any other type of referencing such as personal statements (The Magazine I was reading actually had another article on this very same subject on the same page)just does not cut muster and is asking for trouble. So in the long run and probably the reason why we are not finding arrears any more of a problem than usual using a Referencing Agency who have raised their own barrier before they issue a pass seems to be the answer and for us, we will continue to work harder to find the right Tenant understanding why.

Share

Property Landlord advice: High Tenant fees coming home to roost?

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

There is an article in this week’s Property Drum on page 8 that has caught my eye as one of the chain of Letting Agents who have had to address issues in Scotland have commented upon the Shelter campaign surrounding the removal of Tenant fees. I would have to say I agree with  some of what they say, but I disagree with the main thrust of their argument.

Explaining the group.

First, to place some context behind what I wish to say about the subject, I need to explain where the difference lays between Martin & Co offices and Castle Estates offices, because we both have a Franchising background, but now Castle Estates is an independent group who share the same name, but operate entirely independently of each other and have no central controlling Head Office. Martin & Co remain a Franchising organisation where centre influence and dictate the policy of the group.

Comments are my own.

 Therefore I am commenting as an Independent Castle Estates in Staffordshire and not as the Head of an organisation in the same light as Sue Hopson, head of standards at Martin & Co is doing. As far as Castle Estates offices are concerned, if they operate in a manner I disagree with, then they are also the target of my comments.

Agreement.

Firstly I must say that the whole idea of dropping Tenant fees altogether as is the case in Scotland does not just move costs from the Tenant to the Landlord, for just as sure as Landlords will have to pay for the costs generated, these costs will be offset by increases in rent. Then, as has always been the case, market forces will drive rent levels to their correct rate. But they will start from and therefore remain at a higher level.

Major factor missed.

What the comments miss are the manner in which many Agents and I am not referring to anybody specifically when I say this, reduce Landlord fees and raise Tenant fees so they can market themselves as a cheap Agent in to Landlords in the first place! This is a short sighted policy and will surely attract the attention of such groups as Shelter and the CAB who have been looking at Tenants fees for well over ten years.

Bad practise.

In a market where the number of offices offering Letting services has probably doubled in the last three years as Estate Agents flooded to the Lettings Industry for financial reasons, the opportunity to advertise services to Landlords at low prices at the expense of the Tenants has seemed to much of an opportunity to miss for some. But the short sightedness of such an approach should Tenant fees be scrapped in England will need to be explained to Landlords and of course all of us will have to do this, not just those who overcharge.

Long term practise.

It is also a fact that high Tenant fees are nothing new and I have no problem in pointing the finger at Estate Agents who historically have been the main protagonists of this practise. Do I have Tenant fees? Yes, but they have hardly changed in over twelve years and I am happy to justify them, as I have done before now, to any Tenant coming through our system.

Inevitable?

Unless our Industry receives the backing of the Government in driving through legislation to ensure professional standards are upheld by all Letting Agencies, or they can no longer operate, then I believe the day will come when Tenant charges are dropped altogether justified or not, because those with this objective will always be able to point at practises that take advantage of Tenants where fees are concerned. But equally, as I have pointed out that from my own perspective I speak for my own office only, anybody else speaking on the subject should not ignore the current practise of high charges and should be able to ensure that offices under their control can justify what they charge Tenants as well!

Share