PDA

View Full Version : Amazing tenancy decline



ChrisG
10-05-2007, 17:21 PM
After many years spent in the property field I have heard of many breath taking stories but this seems increadible. Wanting to move from leicester to Southampton (hythe) the prospective tenant finds a 3 bed detached property for £900 pcm, only wanting a 6 month sht and needing somewhere quick he offers 6 months paid upfront plus the £1000 deposit. There is therefore no need to assess ability to pay as its already paid. having rented for 4 years (same house 4 bd det) previous landlord nothing to complain about house in perfect condition. His wife has job in S/hampton but he will not start work until they get there being a self employed person. He gets declined because he does not have a job - some times agents / landlords want their cake and eat it and a bit of some one elses, O by the way the agent will keep the £280 Admin fee!!!! mmmm makes u think, any comments?

Ericthelobster
10-05-2007, 17:29 PM
any comments?Only that I make it a rule to give up on a post if I still can't understand it after the second read.

Paragon
10-05-2007, 17:30 PM
Rubbish.

Being self-employed, he already has a job whether it be selling himself to the next client or prospecting for new clients or keeping past clients happy for future work. All he needs is his past self- assessment returns.

The letting agency has duped him if he explained that up front.

Poppy35
10-05-2007, 19:22 PM
an agent is not only assessing a tenants ability to pay but also their suitability as a tenant. No good getting a tenant in for 6 months with 6 months rent in advance if they stop paying after 6 months and it takes forever and a day to evict them!

Agents still have costs to cover and its quite normal for these costs to be non-refundable.

P.Pilcher
11-05-2007, 10:19 AM
It is one of those where the agent should have referred it to the landlord for a decision - mine would together with their gut feelings. Maybe they did and the result was the landlords decision, but then...........

P.P.

Poppy35
11-05-2007, 11:15 AM
I agree, we have recently had an application submitted from a couple. She works p/time he works on temp basis driving and also has a HM Prison pension of not much. Thus our referencing company failed them. However I Have his P60 from last stating his earnings which are very good so passed all info onto the owner and allowed them to make the decision, providing landlord also with our gut feelings about the couple.

Suffice to say we have one happy landlord and two happy tenants!

Ruth Less
11-05-2007, 22:01 PM
Sorry to hear this has happened to you! There are many excellent tenants who don't have regular income, such as myself. It's never been a problem for me. I just tell the agent my situation at the viewing if I'm interested in taking the property and again as part of making my offer and the issue is referred to the landlord. So far it hasn't been a problem and I just pay the first six months upfront. Thereafter I pay monthly, have never missed a payment and everyone is happy. I explain that the six months payment is instead of employer references. No one has even batted an eye let alone asked for access to my accounts or proof of savings. If they did ask they wouldn't get so I make sure everyone understands this before I make any payments. If it came up afterwards I can see it would cause problems.

Poppy35
12-05-2007, 07:50 AM
spot on! be honest and upfront and you cant go far wrong!

ChrisG
12-05-2007, 10:50 AM
Thank you for your replies. I feel it is just another example of profiteering - charging £240 for a credit check (15 max) a few emails and a few phone calls. Unfortunately the whole industry is in need of regulation as many agents are now ripping off both the tenant and the landlord. The banks are at present suffering from their past dishonesty no doubt it will not be long before the estate agent/letting agent will be brought into line (wait for the howls of unfairness and how self regulation works). The majority of agents are above board but unfortunately the minority have spoilt it for all.

Esio Trot
12-05-2007, 11:20 AM
Thank you for your replies. I feel it is just another example of profiteering - charging £240 for a credit check (15 max) a few emails and a few phone calls. Unfortunately the whole industry is in need of regulation as many agents are now ripping off both the tenant and the landlord. The banks are at present suffering from their past dishonesty no doubt it will not be long before the estate agent/letting agent will be brought into line (wait for the howls of unfairness and how self regulation works). The majority of agents are above board but unfortunately the minority have spoilt it for all.

I agree that £240 does seem to be at the top end of fees, but it is a question of supply and demand. Round our way we cannot get more than £100 for the same service - this is because there are on the whole more properties than tenants. It certainly is not a case of agents "ripping off" tenants and landlords. Processing each letting from application through to moving in takes between 4 to 6 hours and as we offer a service to landlords and tenants, why should a landlord bear the whole costs of this? With our office staff time costing in excess of £40 an hour (including overheads such as administering a dedicated client account plus tenants protection legislation and other on-costs) running an agency is not cheap. Add to this the time taken doing viewings, and most agents you will find will do little more than break even - only making money from secondary activities that stem from letting property.

Most agents I know would welcome mandatory licencing. There is already provision for this in statute - it just need the Secretary of State to issue and get approval for a Statutory Instrument. However the government prefers "competition" to control the market - yet how many landlords and tenants make sure they use a NAEA, ARLA or NALS Agent that at least gives them some protection.

One thing is for sure - and I can't wait - once mandatory licencing in in place and the cheapie, poor service agents who undercut everyone are forced out, my fee structure will change - and you can be sure that NO FEES WILL BE REDUCED.

Regulation of Agents - Bring it on :D (x 3 - but restricted to 1)

Imp
13-05-2007, 09:56 AM
Do letting agents really think they are working for the tenant? As a tenant, I always feel cheated when I have to pay letting agents fees. A typical break down of "services" they offer includes;

1 - Inventory fee. This is purely for the landlord. If no inventory is taken then I am in a better position at the end of the tenancy regarding getting my deposit back than if on is taken.

2 - Arranging the contract. Why is this nearly always presented to the tenant, complete, on the day of moving in? During my last move, I asked for the contract a week in advance. I only saw it on the day I moved in. When I asked for one word to be changed to improve clarity, they said they wouldn't do it and if I didn't sign that day I would lose the house.

3 - Checking in fee. I could accept this as long as it is reasonable.

4 - Some new fee for the Deposit Scheme????

During the course of any tenancy, it is quite clear the letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. Surely I should be able to arrange a contract (20 GBP from WH Smiths) and an inventory myself if I am to be charged for these?

jeffrey
13-05-2007, 12:02 PM
Agents always act for whoever appoints them -that's what agency means.
This is true of Estate Agents (act for V on sale), Letting Agents (act for L on letting), and Management Agents (act for L- whether a freehold reversioner or management co., or whatever- on management).
Purchasers/tenants/lessees should keep this in mind.

ChrisG
13-05-2007, 15:11 PM
Do letting agents really think they are working for the tenant? As a tenant, I always feel cheated when I have to pay letting agents fees. A typical break down of "services" they offer includes;

1 - Inventory fee. This is purely for the landlord. If no inventory is taken then I am in a better position at the end of the tenancy regarding getting my deposit back than if on is taken.

2 - Arranging the contract. Why is this nearly always presented to the tenant, complete, on the day of moving in? During my last move, I asked for the contract a week in advance. I only saw it on the day I moved in. When I asked for one word to be changed to improve clarity, they said they wouldn't do it and if I didn't sign that day I would lose the house.

3 - Checking in fee. I could accept this as long as it is reasonable.

4 - Some new fee for the Deposit Scheme????

During the course of any tenancy, it is quite clear the letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. Surely I should be able to arrange a contract (20 GBP from WH Smiths) and an inventory myself if I am to be charged for these?


I see your point the tenant pays for the landlords agreement, inventory etc would love to hear the howls of protest if the landlord had to pay the tenants removals sounds extremely silly but no differant.