The Residential Landlords Association has called on landlords to play their part in ‘starving out’ unscrupulous letting agents.
Chairman Alan Ward said: “The RLA welcomes Labour’s policy review of letting agents in the private rented sector.
“Landlords especially have it within their power to supply property only to letting agents which act fairly and professionally, and thus starve out the unqualified, the fraudulent and criminal operators.
“Landlords need to be discriminating in whom they employ as agents and not just take the cheapest offer.
“Equally, it is incumbent on the agents, who are members of professional bodies such as ARLA, NALS and RICS, to make clear their charges at all times to both landlords and tenants. The professional bodies should enforce those policies vigorously through effective self-regulation and therefore avoid the need for unnecessary extra regulation.”
Ian Potter, managing director of ARLA, said: “The Association of Residential Letting Agents has for many years campaigned to have regulation of the private rented sector. We believe it should cover everyone operating in the sector both landlords and agents, as without this there is an opportunity for people to slip through the net. This has proved a difficult conversation in several arenas since the Rugg Review.
“There are in our opinion some key features required to improve the consumer experience, including mandatory recognised qualifications, consumer redress using recognised ombudsman services, client money protection, and the ability to be banned from trading in a fair but robust manner.
“We look forward to being able to contribute to any discussions in the future on designing regulation and making it work.”
The National Landlords Association said it was up to the industry to inspire confidence, and said that landlords should look for agents signed up to trade bodies such as UKALA – part of the NLA.
Chief executive Richard Lambert said: “The NLA believes that landlords and tenants should be able to expect certain provisions when using a letting agency to ensure transparency, fairness and a degree of consumer protection.
“Our advice to all landlords is to look for agencies which have a commitment to Continued Professional Development, comprehensive Client Money Protection Insurance and Professional Indemnity Insurance, and have elected to abide by a respected industry code of practice.
“Currently, these features are only available by means of membership of a recognised trade body such as the UK Association of Letting Agents (UKALA), the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA), National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS) or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
“The NLA would welcome more agencies proactively seeking out these organisations in order to provide the kind of consumer protections and assurances which landlords and tenants need to work and live in the private rented sector.
“However, if the industry can’t provide confidence to its consumers, it has to accept that some form of regulation will inevitably follow.”
London agent Eric Walker said he was exasperated by the report admitting that letting agents, unlike estate agents, operate outside of any legislation, and do not have to be part of any redress scheme.
He said: “Labour were in government long enough when we were campaigning for regulation and duly ignored by eight housing ministers. Labour refused to amend the 1979 Estate Agents Act and omitted this key issue from the Consumer Redress Act. It was THEY who made it mandatory for sales agents to be members of independent redress schemes – and don’t get me started on money laundering.”
He also criticised the use of a case study in the report which criticised an agent for charging a tenant a total of £3,804 in upfront fees. Walker pointed out that this included an inventory, done for the protection of the tenant, and was not an agent’s fee, and also a six-week deposit and a month’s rent.
But he conceded that all letting agents should be transparent and honest about their fees – “just like MPs’ expenses”.
Walker also said the report was not correct in blaming agents. He said: “It is the fault of governments who opt not to regulate, and in doing so, encourage rogues to make hay while the sun shines.”
However, he also pointed out that no amount of regulation would stop deliberate criminality.
Comments
Oh I think I understand it all too well. At least I don't post without a nom de plume, and I certainly don't insult other people's opinions, even if i disagree with them. If that is the best you can do then I doubt if anybody will pay much attention to what you say.
@stonehenge - That's what I call having no spine.
You are an idiot and fail to understand the entire concept.
@transparent agent @nw6 agent
There is merit in what's being said and does sound a great idea, however what's to stop rogue agents just writing their own reviews ?
UKALA and NALS have no mechanism to discipline members who do not follow their Code of Conduct. All they can do is terminate their membership if they have issues with an agent. That's what I call having no spine.
ARLA, NAEA, RICS does have that power, although as has already been stated, no regulation will prevent the dishonest from doing the devil's work.
@A Safeagent in London
Now that is a good idea - and I know whose idea it was!! Weed out the unregulated agents and protect Landlords and Tenants interests in one hit.
I have another cunning plan.
CML support SAFE and as such all regulators. How about them insisting that all Landlords with a mortgage must use a regulated agent with CMP? It would prevent many problems.
Interesting - ARLA seems to always say exactly the same thing. I also agree with Eric - why moan when Labour had 13 years to address it and didnt! Seems a bit rich. I actually think there were more than 8 Labour Housing Ministers!!
It would seem that it is the small 'private' landords who go for the cheapest lettings/management service - the big boys have, in the main, more sense.
High profile, continuous and effective education of the public by RICS, and ARLA etc. on the value of using their members should be the main priority. It is non existant at the moment - just ask anyone!
“Landlords especially have it within their power to supply property only to letting agents which act fairly and professionally, and thus starve out the unqualified, the fraudulent and criminal operators.
And landlords find out about bad agents after the event when it is too late. They choose by cost, how many appear to be let by said agent and how big their adverts are and finally how flash their office is. Instructing on this basis and not on research and service provided will always throw up the bad uns.
“just like MPs’ expenses”.
Well this final part of the article is putting the whole thing in perspective. A larger %age of MP's were under scrutiny vis a vis their expenses and went to jail because of fraudulent invoices than letting agents I bet!
It seems that ARLA issue the same sound-bite at every opportunity - have they got an auto responder?
It seems that the only group who are genuinely active and indeed proactive is SAFE. In a year they have done much and have at least driven the consumer message through consumer groups rather than the same old 'club' of cronies who sit and chat over coffee and then moan that nothing changes.
@ Transparent - Not!
Whilst there is merit in what you say - the same can be said of Trip Adviser, yet its traffic and influence is huge.
I would rather have good reviews than bad and I sincerely believe that the agents with good reviews will prevail.
One review is of little value - its the trend which is telling. The bent reviews are easy to spot - usually, there are a few really bad ones, then the agents add a few really good ones - usually written in the sale style.
@transparent agent
I agree 100%. Name and shame these agents is the only way the general public will get to know about them.Allagents is playing a massive part on helping to raise industry standards
@transparent agent
(or is that the scribbler at all agents simply self promoting?)
"allagents is the only platform out there..." Comedy genius.
Any self respecting landlord who reads the generally illiterate adverse reviews posted on your site will see the underlying agent at whom the review is aimed at as being the very agent they would wish to use. The reason - simple - every landlord wants to avoid a dud tenant and your reviewers are stereotypically those very people.
Any self respecting landlord will avoid agents who have a well written positive review posted about them since it'll only be that agent bigging themselves up anonymously and probably disingenously to boot.
Any self respecting agent wouldn't touch all agents with a bargepole - why would you pay an enterprise that for most of its life has existed to allow its users to anonymously slag off agents without any recourse.
Labour genuinely disgusts me...
Eric is right about the case studies - In my opinion they fall into 3 categories.
1. Misinformed as the total sum paid was mainly NOT agents fees
2. More a matter for Crimewatch than ARLA
3. A reason to use an AR:A / NALS / RICS agent.
These cases were of little value and are at best sensationalist and perhaps even decisive
Interesting comment from Ian Potter - but a bit too woolly and diplomatic. They need some to stand up and be counted and make statements of substance and challenge the Government - not simply look forward to helping.
Industry needs a champion - not a diplomat.
Richard Lambert said: “The NLA believes that landlords and tenants should be able to expect certain provisions when using a letting agency to ensure transparency, fairness and a degree of consumer protection.
BUT his members dont have to be members of TPOS or have CMP.
Odd that,.
Well said EW - how true - 13 years of Government and their crowning glory in the Property world was HIP's.
But now - they snipe at the current Government. You couldn't make it up.
The reason Shapps can regulate is in no small part due to the mess years of inactivity and neglect caused. There are many many independent agents with holes in their accounts who can simply magic cash to plug them.
Sudden regulation would cause a floodgate of closures.
@Industry Observer - UKALA doesn't have CMP requirements yet - but I hear its on the cards. That said - they will alos have to make it a requirement to join TPOS which they dont - I know this when my application to join SAFE was rejected!
“We look forward to being able to contribute to any discussions in the future on designing regulation and making it work.”
Sorry just two other comments - Ian Potter does realise I assume that it is now not policy to regulate for both Conservative and Labour (who knows what the LibDems think)
Second how does membership of UKALA (or NLA or RLA or GRELA etc etc) give cmp? This is only available to members of ARLA, NAEA, NALS, RICS and the Law Society - isn't it?
Does UKALA make it a condition of membership to hold cmp? Good for them if they do
Ian Potter, managing director of ARLA, said: “The Association of Residential Letting Agents has for many years campaigned to have regulation of the private rented sector.
Very true - and to whom was this campaign directed.
Bloody Labour.
EW pointed out that no amount of regulation would stop deliberate criminality. - how true. And I agree, the fraud case is utterly unnecessary as it has NOTHING to do with lettings agents.
The sad fact is this. Cheap agents often can undercut as they dont have to absorb the costs associated with regulation, unsurance and legal advice in keeping paperwork compliant. Nor do they need to employ experience, trained staff
Whilst the industry is unregulated, and whilst many Landlords focus is on how low the commission is - it will continue.
Its utterly unreal that Labour criticise something the IGNORED for over a decade and now purport to be the 'voice of reason and consumer champion'.
I agree absolutely with EW who has put it in a nutshell. Total hypocrisy from Labour - they didn't sort it out despite the myriad of red tape they introduced and now blame the current Govt.
The case history is simply false and misleading whilst the fraud case has nothing to do with agents as the perpetrator was not a letting agent at all - rather a con man.
This whole report has foundations which are correct, but its the authors who devalue its message.
Its rather like RebeKah Brooks issuing a review of the and recommendations on stamping out bad journalism or Eric Pickles slamming obesity in Britain.
“Landlords need to be discriminating in whom they employ as agents and not just take the cheapest offer.
And thereby lies the nub of this and thew whole things stands or falls on this issue of cost.
Perhaps RLA, NLA, Shelter and everyone else can also encourage their members to starve out unscrupulous Landlords. Be interesting to see the results of a survey of long time tenants who have had several tenancies with agents and private landlords direct and see who they would prefer to be with
Allagents.co.uk is the only platform out there that has the ability to not only help landlords avoid unscrupulous agents. But also help divert this business to reputable ones.We signed up to their transparent agent scheme and have to be fair in saying that we are picking up more New business on the strength of this membership than on our ARLA and NAEA memberships.
Even Sheltor has started endorsing it as the most credible review and rating site out there