Tag Archives: tenant rights

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

Tenant advice: Access required for a reason.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

It seems some people just do not trust anybody when it comes to access to their homes and of course we both respect and understand that. Advising Tenants before we enter a property for whatever reason should always be done with permission and we fully endorse this golden rule. But sometimes we need access to enable us to do our job at differing times and when it comes to the end of the Tenancy it seems we run up against a brick wall more times than any other during a Tenancy.

Problems and mistakes.

Like any busy office, with property visits, viewings and maintenance issues to address on a daily basis, mistakes do sometimes occur.  This means a review of why and apologies to the person concerned, especially as it can sometimes be a misunderstanding. Other times, with Tenants who do not speak English well, we have to abort if we feel our requirements have not been fully understood if nobody is present when we call, or sometimes we can be wrong and only after a visit we thought was understood, find out it was not and again apologise. One thing for sure, we never enter a property without belief that we have received permission!

Access denied!

However, what we do find difficult is when Tenants that are approaching the end of their Tenancy deny us access at all times! There can be several reasons, problems during the Tenancy, having been given notice when they did not wish to leave, or of course just plain mistrust. It has to be said, no matter how hard you try, it is impossible to develop good relationships with every Tenant. The whole scenario surrounding the renting of property throws up a myriad of problems, some of which create problems Tenants do not appreciate no matter that we are doing our job. Relationships therefore can be strained.

Job requirements.

Of course at the end of one Tenancy we need to re-let the property for the next, which means viewings. There is also the need to review properties and look at any works required between tenants. Of course it is perfectly acceptable for property to be improved between Tenants which is sensibly the most practical time for improvements to be carried out. To be denied access for both is effectively stopping us from doing our job, and is exactly the reason why specific arrangements are included within the Tenancy agreement to ensure arrangements are clearly set out for all to understand.

Time limit.

Of course we must try to resolve all issues quickly and with agreement. We have been asked to wait two weeks before viewings start and will comply, because at least we have access for the last two weeks instead of none at all, but when we are denied all together, we then have (usually) an irate Landlord who wants to know why we cannot progress his property and along with that, we usually get the question who is going to pay for the two weeks lost rent? A good question which the law does not allow us to answer!

Conclusion.

The conclusion therefore is to try to get along with our Tenants which we do try to do as a matter of course. But not just to gain co-operation, but because all things end better if they start with a smile! (Must try to remember that one!) But it is important that Tenants understand just how important it is for us to do our job once notice has been served, remembering that we will arrange visits and viewings to coincide with when somebody is present at the property and always respect their position by giving a clear 48 hrs notice, so to the vast majority who understand – Thankyou!

 

 

Share

Current Property Landlord news: Landlord complaints not being addressed?

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

A report from Shelter (as reported on the BBC news pages today) states that complaints about Landlords have risen by 27% over the last three years. As always there are statistics and statistics and the ones quoted in this report are a little ambiguous, but let’s take them at face value and assume they mean exactly what they say and assume we are measuring one year against another and that the 27% figure applies from 2008/09 to 2011/12.

More houses bigger numbers.

So let’s look at what has happened at face value, because some of this increase is purely down to trends. For a start, there are some 5% more houses in the private rental sector than there were four years ago and of course nowadays, people do choose the easy route and register a complaint with the authorities prior to actually reporting the issue to the Landlord. This must apply to at least 10% of the figure quoted.

No excuse.

But do not get me wrong, as a Letting Agent I am not making excuses for these figures, far from it, just wanting to put a little bit more reality to the situation. At our office for example, we have only ever had two instances of problems being reported to the Council and on both occasions we were not spoken to first. Problems can occur without the Landlord or Agents knowledge and unless we are informed we are powerless. In the two instances we have been involved with a Council inspection, only one resulted in work being needed and that is work that would have been completed should we have been made aware first!

Flooding in!

In the report for instance specific mention is made of damp houses. This year this is not a surprise as I can verify as a Tenant. Many Landlords will have found damp patches and rising water (In a cellar in my instance) without prior expectation or knowledge, as the water table has risen dramatically this summer and started from a high point (as it did in Staffordshire) this spring.

Action.

But none of this does remove the fact that more action is required and this is what concerns me about the report. Shelter ask for more positive action to be taken by Councils at the same time confirming a rise in the number of successful prosecutions or orders for improvements. But if Shelter feel this is not sufficient, then it is clear the system is not working and something else needs to be done.

Further breakdown.

Firstly, I would like to know exactly what the breakdown is between privately run property in the hands of Landlords and fully Managed property in the hands of Agents. As I have confirmed, two houses reported in twelve years with nearly 400 houses under our Management would suggest, if other Agencies operate with both the correct knowledge and standards, that the majority would be privately managed. So firstly let’s have a better breakdown of the figures and more information as to which areas Shelter feel better action needs to be taken.

Now for the old chestnut.

Because when figures are broken down and if Councils are unable to follow up and prosecute sufficient cases then clearly a new system is required and yes, for me that is qualified Agents who pass a Government designed test (with the co-operation and involvement of the Industry professional bodies if possible) and all Landlords must be registered and approved themselves, and if not then approved and registered Agents must look after their properties.

Standards improving.

There is no doubt that the quality of housing in the Private rental sector IS improving and best advice to all Landlords which should always be our objective when marketing a property, is to consider the competition. To Landlords who are not prepared to present and protect property and therefore their Tenants correctly, we must always point out what needs to be done and why using the same principle! If the advice is not taken, then we cannot manage the property. Surely, professional standards to the same level would be the solution bodies such as Shelter wish for?

Drum banging time.

Legislation is overdue because of confirmation in reports like this that the current system does not work. Councils are too thin on the ground and cannot police and control the current system. If all Agents and Landlords had to meet qualifications laid down or not be able to rent property out, the system would be self policing – surely this is the way forward.

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

Tenant advice: Social housing lacking major detail.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

A short topic today, but a situation that has left me somewhat surprised by what I found last week when helping a Family member move in to a new rented home through a social housing organisation.

The Lady checking the Tenant in and I, with a common interest in renting, chatted about the differences between what they do in the social sector and what we do in the private sector and it was noticeable that despite the obvious difference being the nature of the Tenant, and their circumstances, the trappings of how we do our business remains the same, I pad and agreements in hand!

What we did not speak about and what I found the most dramatic difference was the standard of the house concerned and what Tenants are supposed to put up with in the social sector. Actually, it was not so much the house as the fittings or lack of them!

The property itself was fairly modern, being no older than twenty years or so, but downstairs only had laminate in the kitchen and bare concrete floors elsewhere. Upstairs the picture was the same with bare wooden floorboards and throughout, not a curtain at any window.

I can just imagine the reaction of any private Tenant should I carry out a viewing at a house and inform them they would have to carpet throughout and find curtains for every window themselves! I can assure you we would let very few houses!

There was also the question of the state and condition. The Kitchen had three walls painted red and one wall half painted (and not in a its finished type of half) the main bedroom was painted in union flag shades of red blue and white, in blocks some two feet wide, in stripes! The second bedroom in cerise pink on one wall only! Now when we check Tenants out of a property we ensure the decoration is both as it was when the Tenancy started and therefore in good order for the new Tenant and start of Tenancy. It seems clear that when people leave social housing they are not checked, or if they are nothing is done to correct or put right the type of decorating schemes that would strike us in the private sector speechless.

The obvious smack in the mouth opinion that I am left with, is that those who have little choice of where they are able to live because of their financial position ensuring they do not have choice, have to accept whatever house becomes available when it is offered and are therefore also left with the bill of being able to live with the very basics of comforts by having to purchase both carpets and curtains themselves!

This when they are where they are because of financial difficulties is a situation which does not sit well with me. Perhaps I am naive in my outlook, but it is clear the Housing authorities and Social Housing providers are happy to rely upon the charity of the wider family to enable those in dire straits to be provided with such basic comforts as curtains and carpets!

At least if the Government do manage to find a way of attracting the Private sector to social Tenants, another much wider subject of discussion, at least they will enjoy a far better standard of accommodation without the fear of how much such a move could cost them or their relatives!

Share

Current Property News: Localism Act changes continue.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

It would seem that a further little known section (or at least commented upon section) in the Localism Act has come to light covering the requirement of Local Councils to change the manner in which they deal with people who are becoming homeless under a standard notice to quit (Section 21) if they are unable to source alternative accommodation.

Normal circumstances.

This normally applies to Tenants with problems during a Tenancy anyway and would normally mean notice had been served because of rent arrears, hence the difficulty in finding alternative accommodation. But this is the very situation that the Council is supposed to step in and protect those unable to move and the very area where current advice can lead to an eviction order being served by the Courts.

Illegal Act.

The problem is caused by the advice currently given by Social Housing teams to stay put until such time as the eviction notice has been served. As if by doing so the courts are confirming the Notice is correct. At this stage most Council’s will provide accommodation. At first glance the change appears to make the Tenant ‘labelled as homeless’ with 21 days of the section 21 notice still to serve. Removing the need to rely upon the courts at all and ensuring the Tenant does not perform an illegal act by staying after the end of notice date and having to be evicted and all of the stress and discomfort this procedure produces.

Not so!

On taking advice and checking the legislation thoroughly, it now appears this is not the case and that this rule only applied in certain cases, where the Council placed the Tenant in the Private Rented section in the first place. But as someone who has always questioned the need to subject Tenants to such an uncomfortable and stressful course of action I cannot help but ask the question why not?

Simple.

It strikes me that a process whereby the Council can investigate and ratify a Notice three weeks before the end of the notice period, would in the long run save time and money for all concerned. Surely it is better not to place the Tenant in a position where they are in effect breaking the law and offer a solution which is based upon freedom of information and open for all parties to be present in a simple meeting. To me this is a no brainer and having spoken to our local Housing department about this very subject they do wish to involve and engage with Tenants at an earlier date, resulting they hope, in being able to provide accommodation at an earlier date.

Positive steps.

This is an action we will adopt as an agency as I only see better resolution of problems and a cheaper less stressful situation for all concerned. It is good to speak to a Housing department more concerned with solutions than problems. The only area I still felt uncomfortable about is that they still advice Tenants to stay until eviction notice is served, which I believe is tantamount to inviting them to break the law.

Keep talking.

But by ensuring Councils are aware of problem scenarios at an earlier date, hopefully this will happen less and we will do everything we can, with the knowledge that we must always have our Landlords interests first and foremost at the head of what we do. Even so, this stance can only help and hopefully sometime soon, somebody will see exactly what Tenants are being asked to be put through at a time when they are already suffering.

Share

Tenant advice: Trust in your Agent.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

The question of Tenants being able to trust their Agent, or knowing that the Agent they are about to do business through is one that can be trusted has shown itself in differing ways this week. There is a great difference between the two and again, as happens so often in our relationships with Tenants, it is the need for Tenants to understand why decisions are made that matters.

Firstly, from a professional viewpoint, in a Blog that I penned earlier this week, it is clear that as an industry we need to keep banging the drum about the standards that we as professional Agents sign up to. By being a member of a professional body, in our case ARLA we are showing the standards that we operate to and confirming that monies are protected both in the manner in which we run our business and the audit checks we are subject to, in order to retain our membership. SafeAgent, the kite mark adopted and marketed to further give proof of client money protection and standards should go hand in hand.

In short, if an Agent does not belong to either (Other professional bodies such as NALS and of course RICS are of course acceptable) especially SafeAgent, then as a Tenant or Landlord I would ask why not?

Then there is the day to day life of being an Agent where we are subject to the wrath of the Tenants and prospective Tenants if matters do not develop how they wish.  These so often include either being turned down for property because of being in receipt of Housing Benefit payments and the most common one, having a pet. Not forgetting of course, retention of deposits!

The detail behind the reasons when housing Benefit payments are involved are of course individual in every case, but what is always common, is that payments are made in arrears and in 13 four weekly instalments. Set this against normal monthly payments in advance and then add the difficulty created by the Council stopping payments without any consultation with us as Agents and knowing just how long it can take for payments to start again and it is not difficult to see why we do not need to recommend this situation to our Landlords.

Again in short, legally, we have to give best advice to our Landlords at all times!

Pets in houses are another long topic. Again, each situation is different, but the standards set by some pet owners damage the hopes of so many others that we cannot ignore them. Even without bad management, pets can leave an unwanted legacy, we have had too many instances of fleas up to a year after cats have vacated a property not to ignore the possibility! It is difficult to get an x Tenant to pay for carpet cleaning after they have left, so carpet cleaning becomes a must if any pet is involved.

The point I wish to make is what I have written is not unusual, and any potential Tenant affected by either scenario will have heard this and more. But those with qualifications and affiliations with professional bodies probably, by nature of how they prepare their staff, will have a better understanding of how to manage the situation and can therefore be better relied upon to look after Tenants interests and give them the ‘Duty of Care’ they deserve!

Deposits are an altogether more complicated process now, but in dealing with issues left by Tenants and confirming the payments required to correct those issues, the excuses given at times scream that the Tenants involved have no faith whatsoever in how we go about our business when, if affiliated, as discussed above, we have been trained, have years of experience and know exactly what we can and cannot claim for.

In all cases, if we are wrong, the decision is made through arbitration. We prove our case and judgement is made. If an Agent loses a case through arbitration (and here I can only speak for the Castle Estates offices) it is usually because the case was badly prepared and paperwork let them down, rather than because they were making a false claim. Membership of organisations such as ARLA and schemes such as SafeAgent should enforce this view with Tenants.

The fact they do not means more needs to be done to gain trust as an industry, more needs to be done to further the name of professional bodies (Here comes the drum) and the Government needs to get involved and introduce the legislation confirming the fact and introducing the correct level of penalty for those who operate outside of legislation. In the meantime, look for the symbols of professional membership they all have back up, but more importantly, what they stand for is professional intent!

Share

Property Landlord advice: Treating harassment seriously.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

One of the most difficult jobs that we have to do as Letting Agents is to convince a Landlord that no matter how badly treated he may feel by the Tenant neither we nor he can just turn up at the property and demand recompense!  Harassment and all the actions that surround it are a serious matter and a case has recently come to my attention which highlights exactly why we give the warnings that we do.

Extreme case.

The case I am talking about surrounds a Landlords efforts to remove a Tenant because they wanted to sell the property concerned and went about it in a way that was far from normal by any standards which does mean that the efforts the Landlord went to are extreme, but the penalties  are also high and what should be considered is that the Landlord was wrong in every way, before we even get to the legal steps to avoid action, but that does not change that he was found guilty in virtually every step he took.

Notice served.

Even though the notice was served and indeed not questioned by the courts, the very fact that the Landlord applied pressure on the day the notice came to its due date is significant. The courts only have one view and that is that the law must be seen to take its view. Even if the Tenant does not leave on the due date, the courts are the only vehicle through which a Tenant can be evicted.

Landlords rights.

The law sees itself protecting both the rights of the Landlord and the Tenant, but just because a Tenant does not leave does not mean that anybody can take matters in too their own hands. This is why even calling without notice can be considered as harassment! There is one simple rule here, do nothing without notice, even a visit to discuss matters should be done by appointment.  Let the courts do their work, under no circumstances should a Landlord take any form of direct action themselves.

Extreme scenario.

Yes the detail of this case is extreme, but the consequences do show just how this can get out of hand. The damages which could amount to £30000 (along with not unsubstantial costs) are the proof of just how costly getting this wrong could be.

Private Landlord.

It is also worthy of note that the Agent concerned, having served notice, was contacted by the Tenants solicitors, but from that moment on, the action was all against the Landlord and the Agent, obviously unable to fulfil its role, arrears (correctly) to have disassociated themselves. They have no choice when matters are taken out of their hands. But if it was an Agent that was being blamed for this action no doubt ‘rogue agents’ would have appeared in the report! But as it was a Landlord taking his own actions, it would be nice to know that he was banned from being a Landlord again!

Registration.

If all Landlords were registered as was recommended in the Rugg review of 2008 then there would be no doubt and action would have been taken. But that is not the case and as far as I am aware, without a specific case resulting in a Court ban, Landlords cannot be stopped renting property again! Who knows, that may still happen, but what is sure is that there is no legislation in place at present to rely upon.

Share

Current Property News: Ban and fine for bad Agent not enough.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

An Agent who went bankrupt with liabilities of over £400,000 has been found guilty by an NAEA hearing and fined £2500.00. At the same time it has been confirmed following an investigation by The Insolvency Services that he has been banned from being a Company Director for fight years.

Figures confirmed.

The report confirms a figure close to £40000 as being the amount they say Landlords and Tenants lost as a result of his failure to comply with the 2004 legislation regarding Tenants deposits in the correct manner. What appears to be missing from the research I have carried out is any conviction, as it was the Landlords who were then made liable for the subsequent fines of up to three times the deposit that followed from the failure of GDH to register them correctly.

Total?

It is obvious therefore that the total cost to Landlords and Tenants will never be known, but a conservative estimate of around £75000 would seem to be reasonable; depending upon how many Landlords were levied with the appropriate fine (Three times the original deposit)

Fair?

Now is it me? As an Agent who has constantly banged the drum for registration of Letting Agents for the last ten years, being banned from being a Director and slapped with a £2500 fine, does not seem to be fair when all of the individual cases (and there will be many to make up this kind of figure) are taken in to account? In my opinion, what would seem fairer as far as the Industry is concerned would be that he was never allowed to work as a Letting Agent ever again. This kind of punishment can only come as the result of an Industry protected under legislation and proves to me once again that the Government should be able to see that intervention is needed.

Total ban.

I say total bane, because we all know how simple it is to start again with a relative as a Director and it is only a total ban (as in lost the right to be associated) that would be fair in my opinion to all those who lost money.  It is only through Government legislation that such a rule could be enforced. Only then, would Landlords and Tenants know that they and their money was protected.

Systems exist.

And let’s not forget, that such systems to protect our customers already exist! To register with most professional bodies means monies need to be accounted for within the auditing requirements of remaining a member.  It would also be a simple step to have all deposits registered with people other than Agents own Clients account, such as DPS even though this is something I have spoken out against in the past (How would a Solicitor react to being told he could not keep clients funds?) it would be a small sacrifice as opposed to having workable legislation! And then Safe Agent, the latest initiative from professional bodies within the Industry, which already provides all the protection needed for any Landlord or Tenant!

Not far now.

I believe that it is inevitable that the Government will legislate and cases such as this show the need, all we now require is for the systems professional Agents have put in place and promoted, to be endorsed by a Government and hopefully a more suitable and long standing deterrent will be available!

Share

Property Landlord advice: Tenant Deposit should be viewed for what it is.

Posted on by

By Steve Roulstone

There is no doubt that the deposit paid by Tenant has been viewed differently since the introduction of the TDP Legislation which has of course famously been updated by The Localism Act which has been introduced this month. It is not surprising when you consider the legislation is all about protecting the deposit, that most Tenants now look upon this as an amount of money that should by rights be returned at the end of the Tenancy no matter what the circumstances, rather than a deposit to be used against any damage made at the property during the term of the Tenancy.

Wrong perception.

The worst case I have heard of happened to us only last week, where a Tenant using that time old well worn phrase, ‘my friend told me’ continued to inform us that she did not have to clean the property as that was now considered to be fair wear and tear!  Well that was a first for me, what next, Landlords who should supply cleaners for Tenants?

Immediate implications.

The problem here of course is that because this person has been badly advised, the Deposit will immediately go into dispute if negotiation does not achieve agreement, and when you consider that one of the approved schemes actually charges their Agents dependent upon how many claims are made, it leaves us in a ridiculous situation that would, should we still be with that supplier, cost us money for a totally unnecessary case. Whatever happens, it would leave a bad taste in somebody’s mouth and as the Agent we would probably be the subject of the Tenants wrath. Fortunately, we have managed to explain the correct procedure and the Tenant has agreed to pay for the property to be cleaned.

Bad advice.

Of course once bad advice has been given, when we meet the Tenants at the property, where no cleaning has been done, it is too late to put right, as officially, the Tenant will have no access  after we have taken back the keys, otherwise they remain liable for the rent as well. Frustrating for us, especially as we write beforehand clearly pointing out the work that needs to be done prior to the check out appointment, which includes all cleaning and even state if the Tenant needs further assistance that they should not hesitate to be in touch (Of course we know if there is liable to be a big issue because of our property visits beforehand)

Perception.

For me it is clear that the legislation has meant that the deposit is perceived as something that should be returned if rent has been paid and the Tenant has been reasonable in their conduct whilst at the property. This is simply not the case. The deposit is present should rent not be paid yes, but also to ensure the Landlord has a fund to fall back on should the Tenant damage the property. What we should all realise (and I speak as a Tenant myself ) is that the longer we live at a property the more chance there is that damage will be caused. That is just a fact of life, not damaged on purpose, just a by-product of living in a home!

Share