Letting agents could, finally, be regulated and would all be forced to have Client Money Protection insurance. This morning, a powerful cross-party group of MPs pulled no punches in calling for action to curb rogue letting agents.
The report, out today from the Communities and Local Government select committee, proposes bringing regulation for letting agents up to the level of that for estate agents.
It is the strongest call yet for regulation, and one which both this government and its successor will find hard to ignore.
Both ARLA and Which? called for the report’s proposals to be implemented as soon as possible, and the SAFEagent campaign said it welcomed the recommendation that every single letting agent should have to have CMP.
NALS said it welcomed the report “with open arms”.
The CLG committee proposals would give the Office of Fair Trading power to ban letting agents, just as it can ban estate agents. The proposals, if adopted, would also make both Client Money Protection and Professional Indemnity insurances a mandatory requirement right across the industry.
The report also hints that both sales and letting agents could at some point be required to register with an accredited industry body – and that this should be reviewed within two years. A similar hint is dropped that all landlords could be made to join a recognised body.
On letting agent fees, the committee proposes a code of practice to be launched when all letting agents are compelled to belong to an ombudsman scheme – likely to be early next year.
The code would require agents to publish a full breakdown of fees charged to tenants “alongside any property listing or advertisement, be it on a website, in a window or in print”.
The report continues: “This breakdown should not be ‘small print’, but displayed in such a way as to be immediately obvious to the potential tenant.
“The code should also require agents to explain their fees and charges to tenants before showing them around any property.
“Furthermore, the code should forbid double charging, and there should be a requirement that landlords are informed of any fees charged to tenants.
“If agents do not meet these requirements, the fees should be illegal.
“Finally, the professional bodies should make a commitment to full, upfront transparency on fees and charges a requirement of membership.”
The committee also makes it clear that it may well take further action over fees next year, and has clearly not ruled out making them illegal. The report says: “We intend to gather further information on the impact in Scotland of the decision to make fees to tenants illegal, and to return to this issue in 2014.”
Launching the report, committee chairman Clive Betts said: “Unreasonable fees and opaque charges are not confined to a few rogue agents. Many well-known high street agents are just as guilty.”
He also criticised agents for “chasing renewal fees” rather than offering longer tenancies.
These are by no means the only recommendations to be made by the committee in its long-awaited report, which has significant implications for all letting agents, all private landlords – and all tenants.
Which? called on the Government to get on with implementing the report without delay. Executive director Richard Lloyd said: “We’ve been calling for letting agents to come under the same regulations as estate agents since we uncovered an alarming lack of consumer protection and wide scale poor practice in this market.
“We hope the Government puts these plans into action as soon as possible.
“We also want the Office of Fair Trading to crack on hidden charges, so that people know what they are signing up to.”
ARLA managing director Ian Potter said: “We wholeheartedly welcome the CLG committee’s recommendations. We hope the Government will introduce meaningful regulation of the sector as soon as possible.”
NALS chief executive Isobel Thomson said: “There are too many examples of agents who close down with missing funds, only to reopen again, and we welcome with open arms the enhancement of powers to ban such agents and the proposal to make CMP and PR insurance mandatory.”
See our next two stories
%20(002).png)
Comments
Ray, how much do you charge tenants?
And is this charge just for referencing, or other 'services' to tenants too?
If the landlord doesn't pay for referencing, why are they paying an agent at all? Surely they should use Upad and pay a skivvy to do the viewings?
Landlords use agents, as many, many lettings agents claim, because the lettings agents vet the tenants. Hence, landlord pays for referencing.
And what you charge tenants is extortion, because referencing costs £0-£25 and you charge?
If CMP is obligatory but only available through RICS or ARLA then only those joining either organisation would have CMP, the rest would be trading illegally.
By flogging CMP to any Joe Blow TPO and CMP//// are facilitating bad practice. Landlords who use non ARLA or RICS Agents i.e. unqualified ones should not have their money protected nor should their tenants. The penalty for cutting costs is risk, the cost of cheap is risk. everyone knows that.
There is a rash of trade bodies setting up to profit from CMP selling it to idiots who can not get their head around what CMP is and who it is covering.
There are some previously respected people banginng this CMP drum but non have stopped to think what they are shouting about.
Raymondo - The landlord expects the tenant to be referenced of course but the landlord doesn't pay for it - well I would except I use a free service - so why should you charge the tenant for one?
Sigh! this is like trying to herd cats.
Voice. Listen. Try to understand. We do NOT charge landlords the referencing fee as well as the tenants.
The landlord expects the tenants to be referenced, he doesn't pay for it. He also expects them to pay their rent; by your own argument the tenant shouldn't then be asked to pay that either.
RIP. Listen. Try to understand. We do NOT charge landlords the referencing fee as well as the tenants.
The reasons why a fee or part of the fee is non refundable is covered in our our paperwork to tenants and accepted by the local TSO as 'reasonable and fair'
Why do you keep insisting you know what I know?? Clearly we don't agree, saying it to yourself and on here over and over will not make any difference.
GTH. I have rented for a sizeable part of my adult life, I only bought my first house 12 years ago. I have paid fees, deposits and a lot of rent. Without arguing or grumbling.
Read the post again, try to understand what was said. there is no mention of charging the tenants for any 'services' as you call them, only the landlord.
Small point. Read the original post again. Try to understand. We already have cmp through membership of RICS and ARLA. My point is some insurance is better than none at all; if the governemtn won't make agents join a regulatory body then at least make them take out insurance to protect the consumer.
Now if you don't mind, I have a busy day ahead of me.
letting agents do not get a monthly commission from the rent.
Before you start displaying your superior knowledge of the injustices of the lettings world it would help if you understood the basics.
It is the fact that neither you, the civil servants briefing Mp's, the MP's, Shelter, Which or TPO understand the difference between lettings and management. You mix up specific examples like a cocktail and all of a sudden there are agents charging 15% management fees to landlords and £300 fees to tenants.
Without the specifics of each individual contract it is not possible to say if an Agent i charging both landlord and tenant, You don't know, nor do I.
@Ray Comer it wasn't an insult and you were not being disparaged, I was saying you can’t pick and choose what you will and won’t insure yourself against; insurances I take it you have an insurance against you nicking goods and chattels when you walk round an owners property, just in case spot the 1966 Nobby Stiles garage token to complete your Esso set. How about sexual misconduct insurance? You can't use the Car insurance defence without explaining why you don't buy insurance for every other crime a man might be tempted into, however out of character.
You are not going to steal goods and chattels, not going the pervert yourself with an owner’s Lama and not going to bugger off with the client account, so explain why you think one is worth insuring and not the others.
It is ARLA, RICS and NAEA's job to provide CMP and not an individual firms responsibility. Only firms outside the professional bodies ought to carry CMP but by not making it available to them firms which are capable of being RICS, ARLA or NAEA agents would be forced into membership and thus forced into having a 3rd party review of their books and procedures. Travel firms do not buy ABTA insurance they belong and adhere to ABTA standards.
Firms which are not capable of being RICS, ARLA or NAEA members should not be allowed to trade, not because they are so appallingly qualified and experienced but because those who seek to hide their goings on from scrutiny are the ones most likely to be up to no good.
and by the way, all these people posting here pro fees: I would imagine you all work for agencies...
DID YOU EVER HAVE TO TAKE A FLAT FOR RENT IN YOUR LIFE ???
Do your daughters / sons all own the houses they live in ??
Of course that the people posting against these fees are pi55ed tenants!! how can you not be pi55ed to pay for nothing?? I really can't imagine what oher reaction you are expecting from the tenants
@Ray Comer
I really don't agree with your customer/client justification for the fees:
the tenants are not your clients/customers, and you are NOT providing them any service at all amongst the ones you list:
"ministerial duties, for example discussing available property; negotiating rents and terms; taking them to view property"
these are all things that the tenants should do anyway with the landlord. If the agency is doing this IN PLACE of the landlord, then it's a service done TO THE LANDLORD, because you save them time and trouble.
as for your other points:
"giving advice on different areas or locations; answering general questions about the rental market and/or process."
this may indeed be a service for the tenant, but he should be charged for it ONLY when you actually do it!! if the tenant doesn't ask you for advice, you should not be charging them just because you are able to provide it!
I am a programmer: if a client comes to me, I charge him for the software i make for him, not for the one that I know I am able to do and he hasnt asked me to provide!!
@ ray comer
I specified the fees explicitly but I am waiting for your response?! I would also like to hear your argument pro non-refundable fees.
I have the feeling that you are running out of arguments! Basically, you know that it is not legitimate/fair to charge the fees to the tenants. Your are providing the service to the landlord, not the tenant! Remember my example of the recruitment agancy.
And, referencing fee of ~£25 is absolutely fair, but I havent seen an agency yet that only charges this fee.
The bottom line is that you know that the agencies shouldnt charge the tenants, but as long the cow doesnt kick you can milk it. There will be a point where the tenant's wallet is squeezed so much that he will revolt!
Brilliant. Got to love Ray Comer.
So, Ray, what's the going wholesale rate of a reference?
And, does the landlord expect you to reference for the fee lettings agents charge them?
You'll find the £100+ charged to tenants is extortion, because the wholesale charges for referencing are between free and £25.
And no landlord would pay lettings agents a penny if they didn't reference tenants.
So the landlord has paid for referencing. Yet tenants are still extorted?
One thing strikes me as most interesting: no agent classifies the rent as something tenants are paying for. Tenants not only pay rent up front, but they also pay a security deposit, up front.
When lettings agents and landlords, for many years, tool advantage of tenants' deposits, government finally stepped in.
Lettings agents are paid by landlords to find tenants and reference check them.
Lettings agents are paying between £0 and £25 for reference checks.
Lettings agents are then extorting tenants for baseless fees, because they are in a position to abuse the tenants want for that property.
Lettings Agents charging tenants is the next PPI scandal. It'll take just one court case.
That's because travel agents aren't expected to prove that the holidaymakers they put into the clients hotels for 7-14 days are going to be good holidaymakers, and that's why you have to pay up front for your holiday!!!.
If they did, I guarantee they'd be charging you for a reference.
You're talking about two different things; tenants paying a reference fee to back up their application and tenants being charged for something the landlord is already being charged for. The first is fine, the latter is abhorrent. I've only met one agent in over 20 years in this industry who did that and he's long gone now.
@Ray Comer
I think Shelter are pure evil - it is horrible that they call themselves a charity when they take money for one purpose and use it for another. And then pay senior staff six figure salaries. It's disgusting.
Also, I own a London-based lettings agency, which is run by other family members. I have this argument often. I get outvoted because it (charging tenants extra fees) is easy money and 'every agent is doing it'.
So no, each agent is not different. All copy each other, all depend on Rightmove.
OK, maybe I'm being facicious. At least there are now some agents who don't leave old properties on portals.
Things like Client Money Protection and other insurances are a bit of a nonsense and don't help. The industry does not need regulation, it just needs the 'enforcement' of fair trading standards.
And I'm sorry, but charging both sides of a transaction is not fair. And I'm certain in the case of lettings agents that it is illegal. But without enforcement, there's no test case.
To the lettings agents defending the practice of charging tenants fees on top of the agreed rent:
Which other industry, or form of agency, charges a fee to both sides of a transaction?
Lawyers aren't allowed to.
Travel agents are banned from charging consumers.
Oh, I think Shelter and whichever other tenants rights group you two are from have had enough of our time today.
We've more chance of resolving the middle east crisis than getting you two to accept that all agents are in fact different.
As others have said if you do not want to use a letting agent then please feel free to use a private landlord from Gumtree.
If you use a letting agent then please expect to pay for their service.
This stuff about agents not legally being allowed to charge both parties of a transaction is just guff. Agents are middle men and it is wholly normal for them to charge both sides for the individual services that they provide.
The Landlord zone forum is full of landlords who are complaining that they took a tenant on at face value and now they have not paid the rent for three months and are threatening them with XYZ.
The issue here really is not really about fees it is an idealogical issue between Socialists and the Freemarket.
Socialists control the social sector and have made a mess of it. The market controls the private sector and it is working well.
As trying to explain the workings of the freemarket to a Socialist is like "reading to a dog" then I will not waste any further of my time.
This certainly is an enlightening conversation. It makes you wonder if people who work as letting agents use supermarkets or any other services.
@Ray Comer
- Charging a fee to both sides of a transaction is illegal.
- The product (a home for rent) is not a letting agents'; the agent is instructed by the landlord to find a tenant. - ---Therefore, the agent cannot legally charge the other party (tenants) for advice unless the advice is decoupled from the property let.
For this reason, lawyers are not allowed to charge both sides.
For the same reason, travel agents are banned from charging consumers extra fees for selling them a holiday. And yet travel agents need to provide advice, give opinions, spend time in securing the sale.
The cost of doing business is recovered from margin or rebates from the stock sold (same as a supermarket or pub).
Ray Comer said:
"A tenant is a customer as they are classed as a consumer for whom the agent may perform some ministerial duties, for example discussing available property; giving advice on different areas or locations; negotiating rents and terms; taking them to view property and answering general questions about the rental market and/or process."
If you advertise as a buying agent, then give the option for tenants to pay. But in actual fact you need to do the above to achieve the sale.
Tenants pay rent. Lettings agents are paid from a commission charged to the recepient of the rent (landlord), your client/customer.
Charging extra fees to tenants, should be optional. Not PPI-like bundled into the property.
But hey, if you can steal from people and sleep at night.
When you walk into your supermarket, do volunteer to pay for something you didn't want there, too.
As usual when a poster is particularly outspoken it all comes out eventually.
RIP Letting Agencies tells us he knows how to run an agency properly and profitably without charging tenants fees ( Quote "I know what a business model is. I have a higher degree than you, trust me. You are just not competitive enough. Reduce costs by kicking out employees, combine branches (reduces standing cost) and than you will be profitable even without fee).
Is RIP Letting Agents a hard-working businessman who has started and built up an agency using just such a model? No, he's a tenant who is p155ed off because he's had to pay for something that he thinks should be free.
Definitely about - look at what?
I don't think it was about you RIP
I am not a hearsay, I am just an angry tenants with my own experience. More and more people will join in and they we will get your number and see who gets kicked out.
Its just a matter of time with this market situation and you now it.
So, thats enough for today.
Jeez does it really need explaining, the difference between client, customer and consumer? Are we so Amish that we don’t get the basic fundamentals? Doesn’t it make you die a little inside? Christ, if this was a date I’d roofy myself!
Mr ‘look at what’ jazz hands and all, you paint with words… Listen up buddy; you’re the home of hearsay. Too obtuse to realize your pandering but don’t quit the rest of your life yet, just get some smarts because when someone has your number it best to tap out then get knocked out.
Ok so even if we ignore Mr Vapid above we’re still left all foetal position trying to get a sense of our own trading awareness. Another window shop display of how disjointed we are so any wonder Shelter and the like have a hard on for us.
Why do we always have to be the one at the card table who has to be told when it’s their turn? Recognise the growing public dissent and then figure out why because something’s got to give.
@Ray Comer
Dont worry, Its not just Friday. Its since I moved from Scotland to England.
Then stop charging the one of them.
Think about recruitment agencies, they have clients and customers as well. Do they charge me to put my CV forward. Ever thought about this?
Oh, I will list you the fees I dont agree with:
-non-refundable fee -> too much power for the landlord/agency
-credit check fee -> you employ another service such as "homelet" for a fraction of the fee you charge. In Scotland the agents were doing this themselves. Maybe some of you do the same.
-renewal fee -> £80 for what? A print out?
-Inventory fee -> I agree that this takes some time to do for the first time, but you dont have to charge this the following tenant!
I have experienced that some agents wanted to have in total over £400 in fee last year when I was looking for flats. And this year its even higher as some friends, who are renting from this year, told me.
Tell me how much do you ~charge landlords per month? 10-20% depending on the service?
I know what a business model is. I have a higher degree than you, trust me.
You are just not competitive enough. Reduce costs by kicking out employees (i hope you read my previous article), combine branches (reduces standing cost) and than you will be profitable even without fee.
You are absolutely exploiting the current market situation with more tenants that affordable properties?
Getting interesting here.
About letting agencies in Scotland.
Thats absolutely correct that their profitability decreases. Thats the essence of the fee ban. A solid agency will not have a problem and whose who have a problems need to improve their business models.
Letting agencies in England have too much power over the tenants! I rented a flat in South East England last year and when I heard about the non-refundable fee, it was just hilarious. With this non-refundable fee, I absoultely CAN NOT chose the best flat for me. But the agent/landlord can choose the best tenant! That was the joke of the year for me!!!
I have been to quite a few agents last year and there was a considerable number of guys just chatting to each other AND I catched a few just browsing the internet or playing with their phone, seriously.
Cut the number of staff and branch and you will have no problem with the profitability.
No more excuses please!
@Steve
You can write as much as you want but you are charging the landlord and tenant!!! There is no way around this FACT!!!
I tell you one more thing. I am now at the end of my tenancy, and surprise, surprise they increased the rent (greedy people). If I want to change property I need to pay all those fees again! They have the power.
And please dont say now: go to a private landlord.
Trust me I would, but the vast majority of houses are available over the agencies, cause their greedy landlords live probably oversees (; You know what I mean.
That was a long text.
@Ray Comer
You call it client and customer. We call it double charging.
*How can defining the difference between a client and a customer be double charging??? there is no mention of fees*
You have to agree that the charges are over the top.
*No I don't because you don't say which charges you are specifically referring to? and I don't want the generic 'letting agents fees' answer, be specific*
If you are so sure to have a solid business model, do the first step and lower your charges.
* Do you even know what a business model is?*
What is it about Friday's that brings the lunatic fringe out?
@RIPLetting Agencies you state; Last thing. I lived in Scotland for some time and trust me the letting agencies work fine even without these rip off fees.
You are obviously clueless…. Letting Agents in Scotland are having a very difficult time. Profitability has been hit hard and it is reasonable to predict that a number will exit the market. Letting Agents working fine, I don’t think so. The government intervention has created chaos in a market that otherwise worked well.
Ray Comers analogy about buying bread from a supermarket is excellent.
I use a similar one:
I need vegtables. I can go to the market at closing time and buy whatever is left very cheaply. However, it might be more convenient for me to go to Tesco, and Tesco might offer me a better selection and better quality. If I choose the second option I pay a higher price.
Likewise tenants can go to a private landlord advertising on Gumtree and take their chances. They might get a perfectly decent property and a perfectly decent landlord.
Or they can choose (and "choose" is the key word) to come to me where they will find a range pf properties on offer. They can rest easy knowing all of them have met legal requirements (gas safety etc). They can, if they wish, receive the benefit of our local knowledge, be taken to view the properties of their choice at a mutually convenient time, be sure that monies handed over to us for deposit etc are safe and secure and so on. But if they choose to do that they pay for it.
Still rwading? OK, humour me with one more analogy - this is for those who suggest anything more than a nominal charge for a renewal is a rip-off because its just "changing the date and printing it out".
My car's engine management warning light came on. The local garage charged me £50 to diagnose what was wrong with it and all they did was plug in a laptop and read off the results.
Outrageous? A rip-off? Of course not - the actual cost of plugging in the laptop is tiny but they had to buy the laptop, buy the software, keep it up to date, maintain premises, and pay trained staff to be ready and waiting to help me when my warning light came on.
@Ray Comer
You call it client and customer. We call it double charging.
You have to agree that the charges are over the top.
If you are so sure to have a solid business model, do the first step and lower your charges.
BTW, you really don't know how a supermarket works. Otherwise you wouldn't try to compare it with a letting agent. In the case of the supermarket there is only one direction of cash flow: customer pays supermarket, supermarket pays supplier.
In the case of the letting agent its directed towards the agent: customer pays agent (supermarket), client (supplier) pays agent!!!
Double charging -> rip off
The landlord is not a customer, they are a client. We have an agreement with them to provide certain services ie., we have a fiduciary relationship formalised in a written agreement
A tenant is a customer as they are classed as a consumer for whom the agent may perform some ministerial duties, for example discussing available property; giving advice on different areas or locations; negotiating rents and terms; taking them to view property and answering general questions about the rental market and/or process.
For anyone here who is still unsure, just pop into your local TSO's office, he'll put you straight.
All letting agency fees need to revised and lowered. C'mon £80 for a contract renewal????? Its just about printing a copy of the contract with a new date!!!! Thats rip off. The letting agent is paid a monthly % of the rent to take care of the property anyway?! Kind of a legal scam like viagogo. Everybody knows that its wrong but its still not regulated.
The only reason that its not being regulated is that England relies on "services" to produce income cause manufacturing is unfortunately not very strong here. So, the MPs will not shoot themselves, they aim at their people!!!
Last thing. I lived in Scotland for some time and trust me the letting agencies work fine even without these rip off fees.
@ ray comer
very serious! I couldn't imagine any of your clients or tenants having call on your CMP, if you have doubts about your own trustworthiness or ability to run your business any longer what is it?
I have no doubts about our trustworthiness or abilities at all.
I have no doubts about my ability to drive a car on the roads either but have insurance in place in case anyone gets hurt or takes a loss. I have no doubt I can protect my house but have that insured too in case anything unexpected happens.
That's what insurance is about, insuring that everyone is kept happy in the event something unexpected happens.
Perhaps I am 'dull and too honest', but it speaks volumes about you that you would disparage those qualities in an agent, especially honesty. Something to hide perhaps?
you making a fool of yourself. You need to re-read the chapter on contract law and understand that about 10,000 agencies have been legally contracting with tenants for far more years than that particular post suggests as your age.
Not yet 20, all enthusiatic and yet to have your first suit dry cleaned?
With regards to contract law you might well be correct. However, what about the following scenario?
A tenant, not short of money and moving several hundred miles to work in a new city and live in a rented home from Monday through to Thursday each week asks for the following;
1. Escorted tour of the City taking 4 hours.
2. Details of recommended bars, restaurants and places of interest, including written information and reviews.
3. Regular cleaning services.
4. Utilities and Insurance products to be arranged.
5. The tenants employer wants a full furnishing service and requires the letting agent to oversee this activity.
In addition to the above the tenant needs to be professionally referenced by a recognised referencing company.
I consider this example tenant to be a customer and feel perfectly within my rights to make appropriate charges, over and above whatever I charge the landlord. I get tired with the same old stereotypical tenant who is poor and always being ripped off; this is not the case.
The PRS is changing in the UK and many tenants want an outstanding service for which they are perfectly happy to pay.
You clearly misunderstand contract law and as stated the tenant is never our customer, the landlord is. The landlord signs an actual contract with us, the tenant does not.
You're confused in the term 'agent' but although we act as agent for the landlord we do not offer any services or goods to the tenant for payment as with your examples of a TV Licence or Tax Disc. What the tenant pays for are at the behest of the landlord, we just let the tenant pay for them.
We are not selling anything to the tenant, we are procuring them on behalf of the landlord and by doing so we fulfil our contract with the landlord as the tenant enters one with them via the tenancy agreement. The tenant is never our customer.
Charging for tenancy services is fine and £150 per couple gives you a profit any more and you are ripping the tenant off, and you know it
DVLA is agent for who?
Who is it that coughs up to pay DVLA?
TV licensing? There are so many examples in everyday life where both parties pay fees to an agency to receive goods and services. If it were not for Agents most Tenants would receive no guidance whatsoever.
Voice isn’t correct on any level and you are equally as aware.
On many levels It doesn't really compare, the supermarket is selling a product, agents are not selling any product to tenant as they are sold to the landlord. As supermarkets BUY bread or make their own they are selling their own product and so the contract is directly between them and the customer. The point the voice is making is the tenant is never the customer, the landlord is.
Tenants expect a good service from agents because thats what we are being paid to do, by the landlord.
Our contract is with the landlord.
Whilst I applaud all those who go the extra mile it's done so out of the agents good will. If tenant fees were abolished I would like to think those same agents would continue to show good will but lets be clear here, the 'service' provided to the tenant is actually provided to the landlord.
As agents we are paid to procure a tenant and manage them and the property for which we are paid, by the landlord. The tenant is a condition of the contract and not party to it. Unlike the landlord, the tenant does not offer to pay to be housed. Rather that tenant fees are put upon them by the agent as a consequence of the tenancy procedure.
Voice is legally correct.
very serious! I couldn't imagine any of your clients or tenants having call on your CMP, if you have doubts about your own trustworthiness or ability to run your business any longer what is it?
Are you running another woman, discovered drugs, being blackmailed by polish lap dancer minders? If that is the case perhaps you need CMP but I suspect you to be a tad to dull and honest for all that excitement.
@ ray comer
That's not a serious question is it?
I think the voice should be heard. Lets see if his (or her) argument stands the test of reality.
I want to buy bread but the wholesale bakery will only sell it through an outlet like a supermarket. I want the bread, I don't want the supermarket's services like a nice shelf to display the bread on, or a trolley to push the bread around the shop in, or even a dedicated till to buy it from. I don't want the supermarket staff to help me when I can't find the bread, or explain how the bread is made, or how long I can keep the bread, I just want the bread.
But I have no choice but to buy the bread because I want it.
However, tomorrow I shall go back to the supermarket and ask them to give me a choice of having the bread for free or paying them for the bread.
Is charging for the bread extortion? is it illegal? Apparently so on the voice's planet, lol
Bastad Agents make me live at home, I hate them
Bastad Agents take my beer money, I hate them
Bastad Agents take my girlfriends, I hate them
Bastad Agents, Bastad Agents I hate them.
Bollox only 34 words, 9966 to go and the feckin thing needs handing in tomorrow.
Bastad Agents Bastad Agents Bastad Agents Bastad AgentsBastad Agents Bastad AgentsBastad Agents. Gawd I hate my life and its everyone else’s fault. I wonder if I can sell my poem, it does rhyme in a bohemian(?) fashion.
Do not listen to the voice it will make you do bad things, get help!
@Voice what planet are you on?
Tenants do want a good service and the vast majority of letting agents care about tenants and deliver an exceptional service. I have personal experience of helping tenants in all sorts of difficulties over Christmas periods for example. When everyone else is on holiday, many letting agents make themselves available and help.
Your post in ignorant of the facts and unfairly criticises 1000’s of businesses across the UK that provide a great service to customers; landlords & tenants.
While regulation is a terrible solution, what choice does Government have?
ARLA, RICS and agents in general have a bury-their-head-in-the-sand attitude.
Arnie from Newington thinks landlords and tenants like agents. I assure you, sir, that everybody hates agents, thinks they don't provide a valuable service and are over-charging across the board.
Especially tenants, who are not a letting agents client. Agents charge landlords for a service that saves the landlord 'doing it themselves'. That's fine, if landlords pay, they pay.
But tenants are not the client, they should not be charged. Agents who charge tenants fees are extorting. There are clear laws around this, but the likes of Shelter are ignorant to them.
Extortion is the main law (lawyers cannot take money from both sides of a deal).
The second legal basis is PPI. The banks have been hammered for charging for one thing (PPI) while selling something else (credit).
The third example is travel agents, who are under no circumstance allowed to charge consumers extra fees. They make their margin from the stock.
Lettings agents fees are illegal, it's just most MPs are landlords and rather than actually rock the boat, they posture through committees that cannot enact clarifications of law.
You would not accept anyone stealing from you, and I'm sure you're nice people when you're not letting agents. But for some reason lettings agents manage to justify their horrible, immoral and illegal behaviour because the money is easy and greed has got the better of them.
It comes down to this: tenants want the house/flat. They don't want any lettings agent service. But if they are given no choice but to cough up, they pay, because they want the house/flat. That is extortion. And it is illegal.
If you give tenants a choice to not pay, then your fees are justified if they CHOOSE to pay them.
Clive Betts; http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-496061.html
Please explain in what circumstances your firm would ever have need for CMP. You already have cover through ARLA don't you? so this isn't a trick question but more to explain why ARLA need to have CMP but you as an individual do not.
If Joe Blow landlord chooses to use an unqualified and untrustworthy Agent why do they need protecting? If a tenant chooses to rent from an Agent likely or even tempted to clear off with their money a property owned by such a landlord how does protecting them from a wrong decision on their behalf help educate them that they should rent decent homes from decent landlords through decent agents who are governed by a code of conduct?
Mark, if 50% of your profits hinges on tenant fees then I'd say restructure your business model now; and Andystrev we're not professionals in the mould of solicitors or accountants, our qualification isn't comparable. We're sales people.We might have knowledge but please don't kid yourself that the weekly turnover of negs at corporates are on the same level as conveyancers...
I agree with you (Andystrev) and Ray and most sensible agents too in that we need protection for the public and from ourselves and like it or not, regulation is on the horizon.
I am unfamilier with PR insurance????? do you mean PI insurance?
I have no issue with the industry being regulated and making CMP etc compulsory, and indeed I welcome it. I have no issue with transparency of fees either, we have always been very clear and upfront about all fees payable before a tenant viewing even goes ahead, both when they book, and again on confirmation! My concern is with the possibilty of fees being banned altogether as has taken place in Scotland. If that came into force it would bring my business to its knees! With its current fee and commision structure, then on a good month my profits would be at least halved, and on every other month, my profits would almost be wiped out! Unless I seriously re structured things somehow, then in short, I would probably, after 10 years go out of business!
What do people think about the possibility of fees being banned altogther like Scotland? How likely does everyone think this is??
I very much welcome the regulation of our industry as we have failed to regulate ourselves or at least we are unable to until agents are forced legally to belong to a good professional body with teeth. Letting Agents are professionals and should be bound by everything that a solictor or accountant has to be bound by. No more, no less. Regulation should be measured and appropriate. Tenants have a right to know what fees they will be charged just like landlords and these should be clear. There is no reason why they cannot be on the marketing if we have nothing to hide. Let's all grow up. Our industry is maturing, we need to mature with it so that we have a good solid sector without the rogue agents that plague us all. Otherwise we may as well all give up and let the online, unregulated cheapy agents drag the industry further into chaos!
Lets be realistic here; the cost of regulating the regulators would push costs on agents up even further; and don't think for one moment that we wouldn't end up paying for it, and passing it on to landlords, tenants etc; it also raises the question of who regulates the people who are regulating the regulators and so on and so on.
Regulation works - to a point. But there has to be some safeguard in it for the general public if regulation fails - and CMP is that safeguard.
It is bad news that heresay from various special interest groups is judged as more important than actual data produced by a neutral organisation.
Those agents who are honest and open with their landlords and tenants have nothing to fear. However, when regulation is introduced, will Trading Standards be given the resources to police the industry. They certainly aren't able to police EPC's et al.
The outcome of this was a foregone conclusion, the result of commercially motivated lobbying.
Anyone with a single percentile of intelligence would realise that CMP should be the last thing on this earth that is required and only serves as a backstop when intelligent and policed regulation fails, just as ABTA insurance helps when a Holiday firm collapses
Regulate the regulators rather than regulate the industry.
Stop RICS brushing misappropriated funds cases under the carpet, allowing members to quietly put the funds back and saying no more about it and for goodness sake make CMP only available to members of properly professional trade bodies, to be clear that excludes UKALA and the consumer organisation NALS.
Don’t get me started on the subject of Clive Betts, never have I come across a more sour, rude and arrogant man in my entire life, wholly inappropriate in every respect to be chairing this inquiry.
Some questions for the CLG Committee:
1 Why are you proposing regulating an industry when customer satisfaction rates are high? (average rating 9.4 out of 10 from landlords and 9.1 out of 10 from tenants) source P60 of The Property Ombudsman Annual Report 2012.
2 Why do letting agents fees need to be published and explained and other professionals such as accountants and lawyers do not? Surely as long as fees are explained before a contract is made that is acceptable.