x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

Andrew's  Personal Profile View my company profile

Andrew Hill
Andrew Hill
Managing Director
4649  Profile Views

About Me

Leicester's Leading Online Letting Agent. On your doorstep throughout the East Midlands.

my expertise in the industry

More on this later...

Andrew's Recent Activity

Andrew Hill
If they protested outside my office they'd be swiftly dowsed by hosepipe of cold water.

From: Andrew Hill 16 January 2020 08:25 AM

Andrew Hill
One day, we will be paid to for the work we do for tenants. Since taking the right to be paid for the good service we provide, how can anyone expect us to do anything to go "above and beyond" for tenants?

From: Andrew Hill 17 December 2019 10:32 AM

Andrew Hill
It would've been nice if they'd got in touch with us to ask for our side of the story - they blew it right out of proportion. More than one of those were issued so tenant can access social housing as, had we gone down section 8 route, it would have left the landlord more and would have left tenants worse off. Section 21 gives both parties a clean break. And they fail to acknowledge we act on instruction. Do you get the impression we touched a nerve, though?

From: Andrew Hill 05 August 2019 10:52 AM

Andrew Hill
What's wrong with sending a text message? Are they doing a shelter and ripping off the general public so it looks like they're doing something decent?

From: Andrew Hill 21 June 2019 11:41 AM

Andrew Hill
What about 40 year tenancies? Or free rent tenancies? Or tenancy agreements written on gold leaf by law?

From: Andrew Hill 21 March 2019 08:52 AM

Andrew Hill
We're not renewing our subscription with RLA after they've shifted massively in favour of tenants and have zero interest in campaigning on behalf of landlords.

From: Andrew Hill 18 March 2019 09:49 AM

Andrew Hill
Our research said the same and MPs are in agreement that banning landlords from charging for pets will have adverse impacts on tenants with pets.

From: Andrew Hill 09 March 2019 16:42 PM

Andrew Hill
17 mps received 7 page letters from us about the ramifications of tenant fee ban. Not a single response.

From: Andrew Hill 13 February 2019 09:28 AM

Andrew Hill
Of course they do, it's more money for them, isn't it?

From: Andrew Hill 06 February 2019 08:09 AM

Andrew Hill
We sent 17 letters, each 8 pages long to various mps yesterday, backed up with emails to explain the consequences of the fee ban. It's a shame ARLA can't be bothered to campaign for these sorts of things when it isn't too late.

From: Andrew Hill 31 January 2019 08:43 AM

Andrew Hill
We had rental step making out their gods gift because the only charge £20 for tenant find and nothing in tenant fees. Good luck to 'em. Clueless, at best.

From: Andrew Hill 31 January 2019 08:41 AM

Andrew Hill
Fee ban means we can't charge tenants anymore. Those legitimate business expenses must be recovered from the landlord which in turn landlords will recover from increased rents.

From: Andrew Hill 29 January 2019 10:30 AM

Andrew Hill
Why, can't tenants multiply by 4.34? Calculators can cost as little as £1 and I don't think any mobile phone exists today without that feature.

From: Andrew Hill 29 January 2019 10:29 AM

Andrew Hill
C'or blimey. Who'd have thought the redress schemes would be happy about more revenue from forcing landlords to join? I disagree. All the agents I speak to believe this is quite unnecessary, especially with the introduction of housing courts... It's one more cost to be factored into rents.

From: Andrew Hill 28 January 2019 10:42 AM

Andrew Hill
I wasn't aware landlords were also police officers?

From: Andrew Hill 28 January 2019 10:40 AM

Andrew Hill
We increased all rents in new to market rentals by 25% - but yeah, more power to tenants when they're even skinter!

From: Andrew Hill 28 January 2019 10:39 AM

Andrew Hill
Good old ARLA trying to force more costs onto landlords which will increase rents further, no doubt. :/

From: Andrew Hill 28 January 2019 10:37 AM

Andrew Hill
Unintended my backside. Government have been warned numerous times by us alone, and no doubt other agents and probably hundreds of tenants with a decent brain between their ears of the consequences they don't appear to have taken into account with respect to the bill. All consequences are completely intentional. For anyone to pretend otherwise clearly hasn't been following the campaigning against the ban.

From: Andrew Hill 18 January 2019 10:14 AM

Andrew Hill
Yet when Shelter claim every snowflake represents a homeless child without counting the number of snowflakes that fall, this isn't deemed misleading? 😂

From: Andrew Hill 09 January 2019 08:13 AM

Andrew Hill
We were impacted quite a lot by Zoopla listing on Facebook - our tenant enquiries ended up dropping off a cliff.

From: Andrew Hill 13 December 2018 15:46 PM

Andrew Hill
We should have known. Labour are one for pushing prices up and running the economy down.

From: Andrew Hill 11 December 2018 09:11 AM

Andrew Hill
Yes, I realise I didn't mention hmo charges. Trust is, I'd have been there all day if I listed every single charge landlords pay haha

From: Andrew Hill 07 December 2018 08:56 AM

Andrew Hill
We're not raising rents to recover fees tenants aren't paying. We're raising rents to cover the rising cost of business and to mitigate the increased risk we and our clients are set to face. The fact the increased rent is equivalent to the lost fees is just a coincidence caused by the government changes.

From: Andrew Hill 06 December 2018 09:50 AM

Andrew Hill
That's a shame. I wonder if we will have to give back a week's deposit to already tenanted properties? If so, I'll be sending out letters informing of a rent increase for all properties on our books. If not then there'll be a rent increase on all new tenancies going forward. It's unfortunate as this means tenants will be paying more than they have to but the landlord's interests must be protected.

From: Andrew Hill 04 December 2018 17:20 PM

Andrew Hill
Our response to 5 week deposit cap is to add a bit onto the rent. In a 6month AST, we're looking at 26 weeks so, if the rent is 750pcm and we divide it by 26, we'd only need to add £28pcm to the rent to generate one month extra rent over the period, this will allow us and our client to mitigate the increased risk of being forced to take a 5 week deposit instead of six. If the tenant stays on for another term, it's just profit for our clients and us. This is how we're dealing with the increased costs and increased risks for little reward. We sent several emails to the government explaining that this would happen but nope, they think us increasing rents to mitggate risks and cover increasing costs will actually save tenants money(?) This is the world we live in though, where government ministers can't understand basic logic. Increased rents = tenants paying more in rent instead of deposit or tenant fees = not saving tenants money in the long run.

From: Andrew Hill 04 December 2018 08:36 AM

Andrew Hill
We have some perfect tenants with a good, old, well trained dog. There's no insurance available to cover pet damage... Dog is very low risk overall compared to screaming, crying, non-toilet trained children... Yet you can get shed loads of insurance products for accidental damage caused by children. It's ridiculous

From: Andrew Hill 29 November 2018 09:35 AM

Andrew Hill
We are thinking of implementing something similar (we're looking at the £40 mark). The number of tenant no shows we get is ridiculous and with the tenant fee ban, we need to get some money in from somewhere for the services we provide to tenants.

From: Andrew Hill 29 November 2018 09:33 AM

Andrew Hill
Have these people not considered that some people do actually enjoy smoking cigarettes?

From: Andrew Hill 27 November 2018 10:29 AM

Andrew Hill
That 1 in 23 tenants should pay their rent then. 😂

From: Andrew Hill 14 November 2018 08:18 AM

Andrew Hill
I don't think we should be making concessions for vulnerability. We're not doctors or mental health workers. Those too vulnerable for the private rented sector should be cared for by the social housing sector or health service.

From: Andrew Hill 14 November 2018 08:06 AM

Andrew Hill
Well, I'm glad they aren't working with any deposit services we use. Shelter don't know much about the private rented sector or how things work.

From: Andrew Hill 09 November 2018 10:01 AM

Andrew Hill
How surprising a heating company who likely provides energy efficiency services want landlords to be forced to spend more on their services. Crikey. We want our clients to spend more with us. Where's my news story? :p

From: Andrew Hill 08 November 2018 09:15 AM

Andrew Hill
Paul, you missed the comma after "dictionary", you meant "Get a dictionary, dim-wit." Your grammar is atrocious and has no place in adult society. Go back to primary school. I can't believe we're pulling hairs because someone used the wrong version of a spelling. Get a grip, mate.

From: Andrew Hill 01 November 2018 11:34 AM

Andrew Hill
Client Money Protection: Because apparently agents can't be trusted not to steal from their clients.... Why not just have agents who are at risk of stealing from their clients forced out of the industry instead of forcing small companies like is to pay out of the ears for silly things like CMP? Ah well, we're not a charity so I suppose we will have to increase rents to recover costs. £35 a month will allow us to recover our costs from two tenancies over 6 months... If all of our rents go up, that will mean quite a decent pay rise for us here. We're finding the rising costs of running our business are meaning we're less and less able to accept housing benefit tenants as very few meet affordability criteria now rents in Leicester are shooting up to cover agent and landlord costs.

From: Andrew Hill 19 October 2018 10:22 AM

Andrew Hill
Rent has always been one of the largest expenses of renters. Its like mortgage repayments for first time buyers. People choose to rent in areas where rents are too high for them to afford, why would anyone want to rent in London before they had a £50'000 a year salary is beyond me. Its like young people on minimum wage starting families, it's a poor financial decision of the low income earners. It doesn't help that rent charities are blaming those nasty, greedy landlords without pointing their greasy fingers at the government legislation forcing landlords' costs through the roof.

From: Andrew Hill 04 October 2018 12:09 PM

Andrew Hill
It still seems silly to me... If an agent is at risk of misappropriation client funds, they shouldn't be agents full stop until the risk is eliminated.

From: Andrew Hill 03 September 2018 10:23 AM

Andrew Hill
Correlation is not causation. Tenants who complain of damp and mould should be able to learn to treat it themselves. The majority of the time, the damp and mould is caused by the tenants.

From: Andrew Hill 29 August 2018 09:33 AM

Andrew Hill
We've been trying to engage tenant charities in open discussion with tenants, landlords and other agents. Shelter have refused to have an honest, public discussion. Generation Rent and The Tenants Voice feel they're too important to have a proper discussion, so it would appear. Though I did get a very shirty response from Generation Rent when I accused them of bashing landlords unfairly when I commented on one of their posts. If anyone wants to join in the conversation, feel free: https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2176041219341973&id=1999060520373378

From: Andrew Hill 28 August 2018 09:05 AM

Andrew Hill
Our clients in Nottingham have the right as business owners to cover the cost of doing business. Therefore, rents will rise to cover the increased costs of compliance and therefore the cost of doing business. If Notts City Council doesn't want increased rents on their conscience, they shouldn't be charging above the odds for the cost of licensing. Councils are generating profits from selective licensing to cover the cost of future enforcement. This is a speculative cost they're recovering from landlords and we it is a speculative cost, local authorities should not be looking to recover this from innocent landlords. They should use funds generated through fines and other enforcement methods to cover the cost of future enforcement. What's the point of landlord licensing anyway? What we need is a centralised register which, like gas safety checks, landlords are legally required to be part of. The register itself could operate as a redress scheme for tenants in private accommodation, after all, tenants can complain about agents but not their landlords in the same way.

From: Andrew Hill 17 August 2018 13:22 PM

Andrew Hill
Another agent who puts properties on portals and waits for tenants to find them... And as for buying a holiday instead of paying management fees, one mistake as a DIY landlord can cost them up to and in excess of £30'000 - yes, great savings to be had by joining a company who thinks going on holiday should be a higher priority than good property management...

From: Andrew Hill 02 August 2018 10:48 AM

Andrew Hill
3 year tenancies and no eviction powers or right to sell? Bloody hell. What next? Should we provide a personal boot licker too?

From: Andrew Hill 17 July 2018 08:59 AM

Andrew Hill
Some people working in our company are students of De Montfort University, we're Leicester based and on the other side of the city to the uni so it's unlikely this will affect us. However, how are our staff who are students let alone other students supposed to know what is and isn't student accommodation to let without To Let boards? Or, is this Leicester City Council trying to monopolise the student high rises which are clearly signposted as student accommodation therefore pushing smaller private landlords who let to students out of the equation? It wouldn't be the first time out council has gone against general Joe Bloggs in favour of larger companies, in this case favouring those like Sulets. They sold prime city centre land (1.5acres) for £24'000 to developers when the land was worth several times more than that!

From: Andrew Hill 12 June 2018 09:29 AM

Andrew Hill
We have made the decision that, as a result of the deposit cap, we will be advising landlord clients not to accept tenants with pets. It's undue risk that landlords cannot cover themselves financially for from the tenant's deposit. It's a shame, with our director living in rented accommodation themselves with pets, we understand the difficulties faced by tenants with pets. We've developed a philosophy to combat the increased regulation which is hurting landlords the most and this is to make tenants we feel it is no longer viable to serve due to increased risk and lower reward the burden of the local authority. I imagine homelessness statistics will fly through the roof as tenants with pets and on a low income fail to secure accommodation. We'll see a lot more animals going into shelters as owners are forced to give them up to move into hostels. Social housing will be pushed to breaking point. --- It's considered an unfair term to ban tenants having pets outright without giving valid reason; so here's the reason, government legislation means having pets puts landlord's and their properties at too much risk to allow tenants to have pets.

From: Andrew Hill 11 June 2018 10:22 AM

Andrew Hill
The problem with politicians as it currently stands, the CMA rules about misleading practices doesn't appear to apply to them. They can lie through their teeth, as we have seen the Labour leader do on numerous occasions and when it's discovered that they've lied, we're told that we, as the public, are so dim we've misunderstood. Politicians are having a free for all against the sector because of the likes of Shelter and Tenant's Voice, all of whom want free rents, no tenant fees and for agents to kiss the toes of their tenants... OK, maybe not quite but it certainly isn't far off. Somebody yesterday started attacking us on social media because we're letting agents, not because of something we've done but because of the sector we work in; it's unfortunate there's a lot of agencies who promote good practices but on the other hand, there's a lot of massive agencies who do the opposite, such as Foxtons who refuse to prove their properties are safe or Spicerhaart who were convicted of managing unlicensed HMOs, not to mention all those agents recently who have done a bunk with their client's money. It doesn't help that Arla doesn't seem to have taken any action against these PropertyMark companies who have been convicted either, they still brandish the logo and as a result, still have customers unaware of their convictions coming to them to be treated the same way; poorly. This has a knock on effect on the whole industry.

From: Andrew Hill 11 June 2018 10:10 AM

Andrew Hill
This is something which appears reasonable on the surface but surely it's just another burden? Do tenants check the electrical safety of the goods they purchase each year? Whilst we agree something has to be done to ensure safe electrical infrastructure similar to how gas safety is carried out, it shouldn't apply to portable appliances supplied by the landlord for use by the tenants; if the item becomes damaged, the tenant can inform the landlord or agent who can repair or replace the item - PAT testing is an unnecessary cost which will be translated into higher rents (as with all increased costs for landlords and agents). These increased rents are going to spark the next Shelter campaign, us greedy agents and landlords charging extortionate, rapidly increasing rents, pushing the lowest income earners out of the most deprived areas, discriminating against those on benefits because their housing benefit allowance simply isn't enough to cover the costs... I can see it now; of course, the likes of Shelter and The Tenant's Voice will be blind to the impacts of their successful campaigns to end tenant fees and impose stricter, more expensive controls over the private rented sector. As SCN Lettings say, if this goes ahead, we'll simply enroll on a PAT testing course, buy the kit and add it as an extra service which would be added on to the rent for tenants to cover the costs of.

From: Andrew Hill 06 June 2018 14:39 PM

Andrew Hill
Shocking revelations from prop tech entrepreneur that we need MORE proptech! That's like the milkman encouraging us to not become vegan.

From: Andrew Hill 06 June 2018 09:15 AM

Andrew Hill
Right to Rent shouldn't be the burden of a landlord or agent. It should be the burden of the Home Office. Right to Rent means agents need to be aware of the different documents that permit a person to reside in a country; they have to consider the term of their visa when writing up tenancy agreements and how they may be implicated in the case of a visa running out - of course, it is illegal to tell a potential tenant that, because they aren't a British citizen (or otherwise hold permanent right to reside in the UK), they cannot rent this property. So, what is an agent to do? Is not having a permanent right to rent a reason to turn a tenant down and could this be considered discrimination based on not being a British citizen? Even if we do everything right, what if it is a Windrush case; yes there is guidance but is it not the government's fault that those caught up in the scandal have been treated the way they have been? Why are we left to pick up the pieces whilst the NHS, banks and other organisations no longer have to do any form of immigration checks or share data with immigration officials now as a result?

From: Andrew Hill 04 June 2018 17:44 PM

Andrew Hill
Foxtons has lost an appeal against the £35,000 fine it was hit with at the end of last year. The agency was fined in December for failing to provide Tower Hamlets Council with information which it requested about a property's safety. After failing to prove their properties were safe and were fined £35'000, they cared so little for consumers that they tried to appeal the fine. Foxtons are still displaying branding from Propertymark and we're wondering whether any action has been taken in regards to their membership? Propertymark is the go-to organisation for any questions relating to property. Their focus is on helping people buy, sell and rent their treasured homes. They help to protect and guide consumers in property transactions and all of their property experts meet higher standards than the law demands according to PropertyMark so why do Foxtons and other convicted agents still get to wear PropertyMark branding if not for PropertyMark's own profit?

From: Andrew Hill 22 May 2018 10:16 AM

Andrew Hill
The government and consumers are already exploiting us. The last time I looked, nobody stepped in over the price of biscuits, tea bags or sugar... Yet everyone is up in arms about tenant fees? To be fair, if there were more protection for landlords from rogue tenants, our tenant fees won't be so high. Screening tenants to make sure our clients get the right tenant takes time and money. We're liable if we don't adequately screen tenants. Why shouldn't we be able to charge tenants for the work we do to open the door for them? I don't understand how a default fee can be abused. Tenants should just refuse to pay a higher fee and report agents who abuse it, hand out banning orders for agents who do flaunt the rules, drive them out of business. There's no place for rogue agents in our industry, I think we can all agree?

From: Andrew Hill 04 April 2018 10:27 AM

Andrew Hill
Who's expected to pay for this? Plus CMP and the tenant fee ban... Are the government trying to force new agencies out of business or what? This is starting to get too much, the increased overheads will surely mean increased rents for tenants to increase our incoming fees to help cover the added unnecessary costs. Why not hand out banning orders to rogue agents? Or enforce laws and regulations already in place before forcing more on us which are frankly unnecessary.

From: Andrew Hill 03 April 2018 10:04 AM

Andrew Hill
I emailed Sajid Javid and friends about our advise to landlords to increase rents to absorb extra costs... Why have they not mentioned this when they release their reports? It has been made clear that over the lifetime of a 5 year tenancy, tenants will expect to spend an extra £3600 in rent if rents are increased in a way which absorbs these extra costs to landlords and agents within the first year of incurring them. But yes, it's "expected" that tenants will save up to £50 a year... Only in the very short term mind you, after all, our landlords can't just whack rents up. Instead, they must do it in increments to avoid rent tribunals.

From: Andrew Hill 29 March 2018 15:17 PM

Andrew Hill
Has ARLA property Mark taken action against Spicerhaart for managing unlicensed HMOs yet? If not, it isn't promoting good industry standards as they claim What about Foxtons who couldn't prove their properties were safe?

From: Andrew Hill 27 March 2018 10:42 AM

Andrew Hill
We've been doing short term lets for donkeys! Great to see people pinching our ideas. ;) they must be good.

From: Andrew Hill 27 March 2018 10:21 AM

Andrew Hill
It's a money spinner for local authorities designed to drive rents up and price the lowest income earners out. Selective and additional licensing plus the tenant fee ban, plus increased compliance and legislative costs... All of these things incur costs that will be passed on to tenants. It is a shame that our tenant clients are going to be forced to suffer the financial circumstances of the costly decisions made by the local authorities and other powers that be as we've already advised our landlords to dramatically increase rent over the next two to three years to absorb these costs. Those on housing benefit will be evicted as their rent increases to that above their local housing allowance, local authorities will have more cases of homelessness to deal with costing the taxpayers even more money....

From: Andrew Hill 09 March 2018 09:09 AM

Andrew Hill
Tenants can already buy their homes from their landlord when the property comes onto the market and be given the same opportunity as everyone else.... What next? Forcing car rental companies to sell their cars to those who rent them just because the customer chose to rent instead of buy?

From: Andrew Hill 06 March 2018 10:23 AM

Andrew Hill
It's about time landlords start showing local authorities and governments the consequences of all of these revenue spinners. Increase rents to absorb the costs within 10 months (that's an £86 rise per month), tell your tenants to complain to the council about their extortionate licensing fee. Landlords are not charities and shouldn't be expected to absorb the cost of silly licenses just because a few landlords can't be trusted... Better idea, force landlords to join a redress scheme where tenants can actually have a first line defence against their landlord who doesn't use an agent.

From: Andrew Hill 27 February 2018 09:37 AM

Andrew Hill
Frankly, it's about time DIY landlords had to comply with the same legislation regarding redress schemes as we do. I think it's set to get worse as agents are less incentivised to provide a good service to tenants once the government prevents us from being able to charge tenants for providing them such a good service. I can imagine tenants will start being treated as a second class customer... Its like banning the sale of first class and business class travel and expecting airlines to treat first class and business passengers in the same high regard without being paid for it...

From: Andrew Hill 27 February 2018 09:32 AM

Andrew Hill
Bristol want to charge over £1600, Nottingham just £600... Why is there such a disparity? Seems to me like local authorities are monopolising the private rented sector without a care for the financial impact this will have on tenants... £1600 is going to translate into an extra £100 a month rent, easily, for tenants and after 16months when the landlord have finally been reimbursed for the extortionate fee in the rent, the tenant is left paying an extra £100 a month in rental I come to the landlord (which is now pure profit) that they can't afford because some bozo at the council decided its a fantastic way to fleece landlords. Well done, Bristol.

From: Andrew Hill 22 February 2018 10:49 AM

Andrew Hill
Seeing the other fines by the same council, it seems like they're looking for extra sources of revenue.

From: Andrew Hill 16 February 2018 09:50 AM

Andrew Hill
I don't see how why selective licensing is costing upwards of £500... What exactly are landlords receiving in return? It isn't worth the money and I can't see how it benefits tenants... There are already laws in place to protect tenants, including consumer rights. They should enforce rules that are already in place before bringing in new rules.

From: Andrew Hill 16 February 2018 09:49 AM

Andrew Hill
Or is it that we expect landlords to sack their agents to manage their properties themselves... Seriously, though, with all that legislation to keep on top of, I can imagine the life of Self-Managing landlords will get a lot harder. Tenants will be the victim of the suffering as the extra costs incurred by landlords will be reflected in the rent tenants are forced to pay. A single £400 payment will be far better for a tenant than having to pay an extra £40 a month in rent for the amount of time they're a tenant (it'd take 10 months to cover the cost hut if the tenant is in the property for 10 years, they'll have paid more than 4grand extra in rent just because some idiot decided to ban tenant referencing fees without considering the impact it'll have on the overall sector.

From: Andrew Hill 16 February 2018 09:41 AM

Andrew Hill
"Mr Hill (our managing director) would you like to pay £400 for us to be able to fully reference, background check and complete admin plus a further £125 per tenant thereafter as well as covering the cost of our time processing every single application? This allows us to be able to see if you're the best fit for the property and a suitable tenant for the landlord. It allows us to see your credit history, a bit about how others see you and how you were in your previous tenancy as well as indicate to us whether you have the right to rent, whether you've provided correct details and been honest in your application. Now, if you're not credit worthy nor have positive references and cannot afford the refund, have a history of trashing the properties you live in at the end of tenancy and fail to provide legitimate ID, these funds will be non refundable because you would have chosen to go ahead knowing its unlikely you'd pass tenant screening. Are you happy to proceed on the above basis?" Let's just abolish fees and not screen tenants stringently, opening ourselves up to claims of negligence at our expense and the putting unsuitable tenants into properties at the expense of our landlord clients. It won't be long before landlords leave the PRS and the cost of rents will soar as landlord foot the bill for referencing every single tenant who show interest in the property. Do we expect landlords to lose months of rent to cover agent referencing fees?

From: Andrew Hill 16 February 2018 09:37 AM

Andrew Hill
Deposits are important to give tenants an incentive to not trash a landlord's property. Though its terrible that some rogue agents, of which they're few and far between, have stolen from their clients, we're not all the same and taking deposits really isn't increasing the likelihood of stealing, no more than collecting the rent. This chap doesn't appear to have a clue what he's talking about. Imagine the monopoly on deposit insurance premiums if deposits were banned. It will push rents up the same way as the tenant fee ban and selective licensing schemes that cost in excess of at least a month's rent, sometimes two in most areas.

From: Andrew Hill 16 February 2018 09:25 AM

Andrew Hill
All of this extra licensing and costs, such as paid training via the council to earn a discount... I think its rather unfair. This won't affect the rogue landlords or the agents like Spicerhart who are happy to manage unlicensed HMOs let along manage unlicensed properties or Foxtons who can't prove their properties meet safety standards. All this is going to do is further price individual, compliant landlords out of the PRS which may cause rental shortages, increasing rental demand and pushing rents up... Rents will increase to absorb the cost of selective licencing too which means the only people who lose out as a result of rogue landlords are the tenants in properties owned by good landlords. Well Done, Nottingham!

From: Andrew Hill 15 February 2018 10:42 AM

Andrew Hill
Surely, the costs businesses have to pay for CMP and memberships to "professional" bodies should come down if this forced upon us? As a new lettings agency dealing with coming to terms with the potential tenant fee ban, how are we expected to not pass costs on to landlords who, in turn, will pass the higher costs onto tenants in the form of rent? Personally, I don't think PropertyMark are as credible - look at Foxtons, still showing on propertymark register and still showing the logo on their website yet convicted for failing to prove their properties were safe? What even does property mark stand for if not to show agents actually know what they're doing and are compliant with the law? I expected Foxtons to lose the property mark seal after being convicted of failing to provide safe properties but apparently, so long as you pay your fees, you don't have to abide by their code of conduct. As for CMP as a whole, another expense... What if you don't have any staff? I don't think CMP boosts credibility. "Yes, Mr Client. We have CMP in place so that you're protected should we decide to fail to pass on monies due." - Professional Indemnity usually covers client money from a staff point of view so CMP is really for the agents who don't trust themselves to look after their clients money. Frankly, if an agency gives reason for CMP, for example, because they've misappropriated client funds in the past, should they even be allowed to operate? I'd say no... If I was a landlord and I found out the agents I employed had previously misappropriated funds, even with CMP, I wouldn't want to deal with them.

From: Andrew Hill 05 February 2018 08:18 AM

Andrew Hill
Tenants who don't pay their rent are pests to landlords, though... I mean, landlords aren't letting tenants live in their property for free. Are shoplifters not pests to the likes of Tesco, Morrisons, etc? Why then are bad tenants not allowed to be considered pests? If anybody is offended by being called a pest, if they were better tenants, it wouldn't be an issue

From: Andrew Hill 06 December 2017 16:22 PM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal