Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Si1

Landlord seeking to leave Agency contract and rent to me direct - advice please!

19 posts in this topic

I have received a perfectly (on the surface) pleasant letter from my landlord, indicating that at the end of my annual contract to rent my family house from an agency, he will end the involvement of the agency and rent to me direct.

He has asked for name/contact details as he says the agency has not passed these onto him yet.

Is this legal whilst still within the original tenancy contract with the agency?

 

Also what might his motivations be? To up the rent to cover his s24 costs, perhaps against the agency's advice? Genuinely to save agency fees and complication?

 

 

 

 

How should I play this?

 

(a reasonable street in Bramley, West Leeds, married, 2 young kids)

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go along with what the landlord wants, he has the power to end the tenancy and cause you a lot of hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Probably just wants to stop paying the agency.

That's my hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in this position and it worked out well. No more officious agent trying to let themselves in for inspections etc. We once had one open the front door with a key and walk in even though I had made it crystal clear that they were not to enter without us being there and with our express permission. Unfortunately for the agent, we were in and said a lot in a short space of time, very loudly. After that the landlord sacked them.

As there is likely to be some animosity between the agent and the landlord and your deposit is probably held in the agent's name, make sure that you have it in writing from the landlord that he will return your deposit from his own funds if the agent attempts to use it as a weapon when the time comes for you to move on. I was glad that I did that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Si1 said:

I have received a perfectly (on the surface) pleasant letter from my landlord, indicating that at the end of my annual contract to rent my family house from an agency, he will end the involvement of the agency and rent to me direct....

Probably wants to stop handing the agent 10%, or whatever it is.

A couple of things I can think of for you to consider:

What's going to happen to the deposit, if you gave it to the agent you should get it back and then ask the landlord where he is going to hold it.

You're probably going to have to sign a new contract if the current one mentions the agency, so ask if you can see the one he intends to present to you, or at least get confirmation that it's not going to be different from current T&Cs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Si1 said:

I have received a perfectly (on the surface) pleasant letter from my landlord, indicating that at the end of my annual contract to rent my family house from an agency, he will end the involvement of the agency and rent to me direct.

He has asked for name/contact details as he says the agency has not passed these onto him yet.

Is this legal whilst still within the original tenancy contract with the agency?

Also what might his motivations be? To up the rent to cover his s24 costs, perhaps against the agency's advice? Genuinely to save agency fees and complication?

How should I play this?

(a reasonable street in Bramley, West Leeds, married, 2 young kids)

Why not ask Damocles, he is very knowledgeable about land law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2017 at 6:40 PM, sleepwello'nights said:

Why not ask Damocles, he is very knowledgeable about land law.

I don't see how he has any special ability to answer any of Si1's questions/concerns/theories about why Si1's landlord wants to take out the agent.

You know a lot about landlording and landlords yourself, sleepers.  Any of your clients reacting to S24 and other measures to try and save costs?  Such as cutting out the agent.

 

Concrete Jungle, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:34 PM, said:snapback.png

I would not want to deprive another human being of a home in which they can raise a family.

 

 

DementedTuna, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:40 PM, said:snapback.png

Agreed, it's one of the most antisocial investments you can make.

Why not put the money into a set of companies that all pay out a reasonable dividend each year? End result is pretty much the same as BTL, with much less hassle, the ability to sell up at a moment's notice, and in a way that helps to provide employment for your fellow human beings rather than helping to artifically inflate the price of their shelter far beyond their means?

I think BTL'ers must have some sort of sociopathic tendencies, it's the only explanation.

 

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

 

More recently, and after Section 24 shock on so many BTLers....  

Maybe some landlords/BTLers are more stuck than others, for income tax (S24), CGT (mewed to buy more), in the foreverHPI.

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Aug 2015 - 7:50 PM, said:snapback.png

Still sleeping very well thank you. I did look at your response to the post I made a week or so ago, you're so wrong on so many levels, but hey. I know the aca exams are difficult, what with the secret ticks and use of colour pens. I'm curious why such a numerate high flying qualified accountant would leave the lucrative world of financial services. I did consider berating you for being elitist and boastful but you know that already. What soul searching made you leave?

 

I've been having a good laugh at the puerile jibes your gang have been making, the posts give a good insight into your characters. Carry on. You might all grow up one day in the distant future maybe.

 

Despite your derision I still stand by the results of my investment decision. It has been one, not the only one, or the best one, but one of my most successful.

 

If you want some numbers to reflect on, let me give you a brief outline of the decision one of my clients is pondering. I'll use Venger's semi literate style so the example I'm advising on isn't to verbose.

 

Two new builds purchased 2005 Each £150k, 20% deposit, £120k loan. Let immediately, self managed, rental income £750 per month, tracker mortgage BOE base + 0.25 initially. Minimal maintenance costs, mortgage installments £500 per month. 

 

Second mortgage (MEW) of £30k taken on each property in 2006. Effectively they have cost the buyer nothing. Although to be fair there is the capital risk of £150k loan on each, which can be repaid from their other resources if necessary. Financial crisis hits and BOE base rate plummets taking installments down to £200 per month. Rental income increased to current level of £900. Still self managed, over period of ownership void periods total 2 months. Maintenance still minimal. Current market price £240k. Properties in retired wife's name, she is a standard rate taxpayer with only income small occupational pension  £3000 per annum and state pension.  Letting income has been declared and any income tax due paid on time.

 

Decision is whether to sell now and release £180k gain less 18% CGT, which can be legitimately avoided but I won't tell you how (I only give that tax avoidance advice to paying clients) or continue letting. This was a similar decision to mine last year, I sold and lost out on the HPI this year. Nevertheless it was still a successful investment. 

 

Hope things go okay Si1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did this and it worked out very well. our LL fell out with the agent as they did not organise repairs. I think that secretly it was to save the agents fees.  Couple of things to bear in mind.

Have a look in your AST and see if there are any strange terms that could cover this. I am guessing that there won't be but worth a look. It's the LL that has a contract with the agency.

Does your LL want you to lie to the agent or are they happy for you to tell the truth if asked? 

Will the agent try to slap you for fees like an inventory as if you are moving out? 

 

 

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/2/2017 at 7:40 PM, sleepwello'nights said:

Why not ask Damocles, he is very knowledgeable about land law.

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

A letting where an agent is involved is not a three-way agreement between landlord, tenant and agent. The tenant has no contractual relationship with the agent. He is not concerned with the terms on which the agent is engaged by the landlord. There cannot be any comeback on the tenant if he complies with the landlord's request to deal directly with him. There is more likely to be a comeback if he does not comply.

It is certainly a good idea to sort the deposit out if held by the agent. The agent must comply with the joint instruction of landlord and tenant as to its disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be warned that the agent is likely to want to / have a right to charge the LL a finders fee for you.

The LL won't want to pay this, and the easiest way for the agent to get it is to retain the deposit.

You then need the LL to register a deposit which he hasn't actually received directly from you but has 'paid' to the the agent.

Voice of experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 0:55 PM, Venger said:

I don't see how he has any special ability to answer any of Si1's questions/concerns/theories about why Si1's landlord wants to take out the agent.

You know a lot about landlording and landlords yourself, sleepers.  Any of your clients reacting to S24 and other measures to try and save costs?  Such as cutting out the agent.

 

Concrete Jungle, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:34 PM, said:snapback.png

I would not want to deprive another human being of a home in which they can raise a family.

 

 

DementedTuna, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:40 PM, said:snapback.png

Agreed, it's one of the most antisocial investments you can make.

Why not put the money into a set of companies that all pay out a reasonable dividend each year? End result is pretty much the same as BTL, with much less hassle, the ability to sell up at a moment's notice, and in a way that helps to provide employment for your fellow human beings rather than helping to artifically inflate the price of their shelter far beyond their means?

I think BTL'ers must have some sort of sociopathic tendencies, it's the only explanation.

 

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

 

More recently, and after Section 24 shock on so many BTLers....  

Maybe some landlords/BTLers are more stuck than others, for income tax (S24), CGT (mewed to buy more), in the foreverHPI.

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Aug 2015 - 7:50 PM, said:snapback.png

Still sleeping very well thank you. I did look at your response to the post I made a week or so ago, you're so wrong on so many levels, but hey. I know the aca exams are difficult, what with the secret ticks and use of colour pens. I'm curious why such a numerate high flying qualified accountant would leave the lucrative world of financial services. I did consider berating you for being elitist and boastful but you know that already. What soul searching made you leave?

 

I've been having a good laugh at the puerile jibes your gang have been making, the posts give a good insight into your characters. Carry on. You might all grow up one day in the distant future maybe.

 

Despite your derision I still stand by the results of my investment decision. It has been one, not the only one, or the best one, but one of my most successful.

 

If you want some numbers to reflect on, let me give you a brief outline of the decision one of my clients is pondering. I'll use Venger's semi literate style so the example I'm advising on isn't to verbose.

 

Two new builds purchased 2005 Each £150k, 20% deposit, £120k loan. Let immediately, self managed, rental income £750 per month, tracker mortgage BOE base + 0.25 initially. Minimal maintenance costs, mortgage installments £500 per month. 

 

Second mortgage (MEW) of £30k taken on each property in 2006. Effectively they have cost the buyer nothing. Although to be fair there is the capital risk of £150k loan on each, which can be repaid from their other resources if necessary. Financial crisis hits and BOE base rate plummets taking installments down to £200 per month. Rental income increased to current level of £900. Still self managed, over period of ownership void periods total 2 months. Maintenance still minimal. Current market price £240k. Properties in retired wife's name, she is a standard rate taxpayer with only income small occupational pension  £3000 per annum and state pension.  Letting income has been declared and any income tax due paid on time.

 

Decision is whether to sell now and release £180k gain less 18% CGT, which can be legitimately avoided but I won't tell you how (I only give that tax avoidance advice to paying clients) or continue letting. This was a similar decision to mine last year, I sold and lost out on the HPI this year. Nevertheless it was still a successful investment. 

 

Hope things go okay Si1.

Cool, you've saved all my posts and posted a selection. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Cool, you've saved all my posts and posted a selection. Thanks.

That's okay.  

BTL so great.  

"I'm alright Jack, F**k You!"

Millions of homes taken by the BTLers, and tenants always on edge about positions of their BTL landlords, with insecure tenancies.  

On 2/13/2017 at 8:50 AM, Si1 said:

I have received a perfectly (on the surface) pleasant letter from my landlord, indicating that at the end of my annual contract to rent my family house from an agency, he will end the involvement of the agency and rent to me direct.

He has asked for name/contact details as he says the agency has not passed these onto him yet.

Is this legal whilst still within the original tenancy contract with the agency?

Also what might his motivations be? To up the rent to cover his s24 costs, perhaps against the agency's advice? Genuinely to save agency fees and complication?

How should I play this?

(a reasonable street in Bramley, West Leeds, married, 2 young kids)

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2017 at 11:05 AM, CunningPlan said:

Be warned that the agent is likely to want to / have a right to charge the LL a finders fee for you.

The LL won't want to pay this, and the easiest way for the agent to get it is to retain the deposit.

You then need the LL to register a deposit which he hasn't actually received directly from you but has 'paid' to the the agent.

Voice of experience.

As Damocles says, the arrangement is between you and the landlord, the agent has no real part.

This includes the deposit. It's the landlord's problem if the agent goes bust/refuses to give him the deposit. Assuming it's protected in a non-custodial scheme, the insurer will refund it to you and recover it from the landlord when you leave all things being well.

If it's not, then you can sue for (up to) the 3x deposit + return of the deposit.

In summary, It's the landlord's problem that the agent holds the deposit, not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mat109 said:

As Damocles says, the arrangement is between you and the landlord, the agent has no real part.

This includes the deposit. It's the landlord's problem if the agent goes bust/refuses to give him the deposit. Assuming it's protected in a non-custodial scheme, the insurer will refund it to you and recover it from the landlord when you leave all things being well.

If it's not, then you can sue for (up to) the 3x deposit + return of the deposit.

In summary, It's the landlord's problem that the agent holds the deposit, not yours.

What you say is perfectly correct.

However, it is aggravation that can be avoided if the issue is raised with the Landlord before it gets to that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Venger said:

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

 

sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

 

They are very good aren't they. I'm not surprised you keep them to read again. Have you thought about compiling them into a book. Have a word with "Wish I could afford one" he'll give you some tips on how to publish.

His book is very good by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

They are very good aren't they. I'm not surprised you keep them to read again. Have you thought about compiling them into a book. Have a word with "Wish I could afford one" he'll give you some tips on how to publish.

His book is very good by the way.

Will look into the book by @wish I could afford one .  Always intended to follow up and read it.

Just finished reading the short book by Jesse Livermore; "How to Trade In Stocks" (1940)

Jesse Lauriston Livermore was an American investor and security analyst. He was known as the Boy Plunger and The Great Bear of Wall Street.   Born: 26 July 1877.  Died: 28 November 1940.

Quote

 

Profits always take care of themselves, but losses never do.    ..How often have you heard an investor say "I don't have to worry about fluctuations or margin calls.  When I buy stocks, I buy them for investment, and if they go down, eventually they will come back."   But unhappily for such investors many stocks bought at a time when they were deemed good investments have met with drastically changed conditions.

You will recall not so many years ago it was considered safer to have your money invested in New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad than to have it in a bank.   On April 28 1902, New Haven was selling at $255 a share,  In December 1906, Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul sold at $199.62.  In January of that same year Chicago Northwestern sold at $240 a share.  On February 9 of that year, Great Northern Railway sold at $348 a share.  All were paying good dividends.    

 Look at those "investments" today:  On January 2, 1940 they were quoted at the following prices: NY,NH & Hartford $0.50 per share; Chicago Northwestern at $0.31 per share.  On January 5, 1940, it was quoted at $0.25 per share.  

It would be simple to run down the list of hundreds of stocks which, in my time, have been considered gilt-edged investments, which today are worth little or nothing.  Thus, great investments tumble, and with them the fortunes of so-called conservative investors in the  continuous distribution of wealth.  Speculators in stock markets have lost money.  But I believe it is a safe statement that the money lost by speculation alone in small compared with the gigantic sums lost by so-called investors who have let their investments ride.  

 

Investment Requires Work / TREND / Buy / Sell.

BTLers/HPIers may have to learn some things in time ahead.  Population growth don't cut it.  Real estate runs on money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I am too drunk to read all the stuff above, but I would give you a quick bit of advice as a fellow northerner (also applies to others that rent). Put your name down on the council housing list, and keep it on there. It looks like leeds uses the same bidding system as sheffield where I am, and if you let the time build up while you are private renting, eventually you will have enough 'time' to bid on a council house in the nice areas. Just my 2p worth.

It generally takes about 10 mins to register online, then you can forget about it. If you never get to 'home ownership' you may be able to get the next best thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sleepwello'nights said:

They are very good aren't they. I'm not surprised you keep them to read again. Have you thought about compiling them into a book. Have a word with "Wish I could afford one" he'll give you some tips on how to publish.

His book is very good by the way.

Thanks for the hat tip sleepwello'nights.  Reviews are mixed (ten 4 or 5 stars and two 1 or 2 stars) with the last being:

"All these positive reviews must be fake. The book is incredibly short and gives no depth to anything being mentioned. Quotations are used that have little relevancy to what is being discussed or, at best, provide no further insights. Grammar throughout the book is awful (some sentences are effectively meaningless) and the author appears to believe commas are to be avoided at all costs.

The best thing I can say is that reading it only wasted a couple of hours of my life."

It was particularly interesting that the reviewer thinks I was wasting their life.  By following nothing more than what I've written in my book my wealth hit £1.1M this week and it took me 9.3 years.  It certainly hasn't wasted any of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.