Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
loginandtonic

Shouldn't It Be Illegal For A Letting Agency To Let To A Tenant But

Recommended Posts

In estate agency there has to be disclosure of that for a buyer. So why not in lettings?

My landlord turns out to be a member of staff for the agency at another office, I only found out after signing when a neighbour told me

- tango'd -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't you ask ?

Surely one of the most important questions to ask is who the landlord is before you commit thousands of pounds.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't you ask ?

Surely one of the most important questions to ask is who the landlord is before you commit thousands of pounds.....

coz i is the dumb dumb wot trusted 'em, [hangs head in shame]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In estate agency there has to be disclosure of that for a buyer. So why not in lettings?

Because in selling, there's a conflict of interest that might affect the price paid.

Whilst there's still the conflict of interest for a letting, it won't affect the rent agreed.

HTH

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because in selling, there's a conflict of interest that might affect the price paid.

Whilst there's still the conflict of interest for a letting, it won't affect the rent agreed.

HTH

tim

surely if it can affect a property price in a sale it can affect the price in a rental, i see no difference, its a conflict of interests

What does it matter? Think of it this way - at least you'll always know where to find your landlord.

see above, but i agree on knowing where the landlord is but they still havent officially told me and i think it stinks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what the problem is. The landlord's employment does not have any bearing on your agreement with him. What is the point of taking offence at something without importance? He'll either be a good landlord or a bad one - what does it matter where he works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't understand what the problem is. The landlord's employment does not have any bearing on your agreement with him. What is the point of taking offence at something without importance? He'll either be a good landlord or a bad one - what does it matter where he works?

it matters that he/she is a property professional and its not declared, i use the term professional in the f/t earnings rather than skills sense of course

- thats got to be iffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't understand what the problem is. The landlord's employment does not have any bearing on your agreement with him. What is the point of taking offence at something without importance? He'll either be a good landlord or a bad one - what does it matter where he works?

Conflict of interest.

I'd be more concerned about it renting than buying. In the latter case I am at least somewhat protected by having someone - the surveyor and conveyancer - acting for me as a counterbalance to any agent's skullduggery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conflict of interest.

I'd be more concerned about it renting than buying. In the latter case I am at least somewhat protected by having someone - the surveyor and conveyancer - acting for me as a counterbalance to any agent's skullduggery.

Seriously, WHAT conflict of interest? You think that agents are some sort of impartial adjudicator between tenants and landlords? Believe me, they are not.

Once the deal is done, the agent has no further interest, unless they are managing the property on behalf of the landlord, in which case they act in the landlord's interest (or so the landlord hopes), not the tenant's.

You need to watch out for yourself, not expect the agent to protect you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conflict of interest.

I'd be more concerned about it renting than buying. In the latter case I am at least somewhat protected by having someone - the surveyor and conveyancer - acting for me as a counterbalance to any agent's skullduggery.

thx, mac doesnt get it for some reason [shrugs shoulders]

Seriously, WHAT conflict of interest? You think that agents are some sort of impartial adjudicator between tenants and landlords? Believe me, they are not.

Once the deal is done, the agent has no further interest, unless they are managing the property on behalf of the landlord, in which case they act in the landlord's interest (or so the landlord hopes), not the tenant's.

You need to watch out for yourself, not expect the agent to protect you.

never did think the agent was looking out for me, but an agent whose employee is the landlord is double jeopardy, simples as plain as day, + indeed if they knew it would be seen as nothing 'iffy' theyd have told me upfront! [!]

Edited by loginandtonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surely if it can affect a property price in a sale it can affect the price in a rental, i see no difference, its a conflict of interests

see above, but i agree on knowing where the landlord is but they still havent officially told me and i think it stinks

It is not strictly a conflict of interests.

Both for selling and letting, the agent acts on behalf of the owner or landlord. As someone else said, they are NOT impartial go betweens, never. So as buyer or renter, the agent never NEEDS to take your interests into account and MUST never put your interests above those of the seller or landlord. Conflict of interest arises when the Agent has an employee who is a prospective buyer. The comparable situation for renting is when the Agent's employee is a prospective tenant.

In either case, the person who stands to suffer from the conflict of interest is the owner or landlord. The prospective buyer or tenant only suffers from the agent's conflict of interest if the agent's employee is also a prospective buyer or tenant who stops others from getting a look in or putting an offer forward. Not the case for you.

In your case, you get the short end of the stick from the agent whether renting or buying because that is the way it is. The fact that an agent's employee is either the seller or the landlord does not make your end of the stick any shorter.

Hope that helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a conflict of interest plain and simple -

it couldnt be any clearer,

whether its in law or old fashioned common sense,

its a conflict of interests when an agent's employee is the landlord.

if i offer to buy a pot from you as agent and you are selling it for your employee rather than selling it for an otherwise non connected third party, because you see your employee on a daily basis and have a concern for their welfare as your employee in all sorts of ways, you are sitting in a big puddle of conflct of interests, and one day it'll get tested and proven in court, mark my words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is a conflict of interest plain and simple -

it couldnt be any clearer,

whether its in law or old fashioned common sense,

its a conflict of interests when an agent's employee is the landlord.

if i offer to buy a pot from you as agent and you are selling it for your employee rather than selling it for an otherwise non connected third party, because you see your employee on a daily basis and have a concern for their welfare as your employee in all sorts of ways, you are sitting in a big puddle of conflct of interests, and one day it'll get tested and proven in court, mark my words

I suspect the court would be a baffled as everyone one else as to why there is a conflict of interest. The agents job is to let the flat for as much as he can get whether or not he knows the landlord. He has no interest in you, apart from getting your money, so there cannot be any conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this thread has been extended beyond its useful life. I honestly cannot see the point of the OP's disappointment with the agency; the only way it would make sense is if he sees the agent as his representative, fighting to get him the best deal, and so on, which is simply not the way it works.

OP, we're not going to agree, but do try at least make the situation work for you. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a landlord who knows what their rights and responsibilities are (there's no GUARANTEE that an employee of an agency will know this, but surely the chance of it is higher than with a normal landlord). This may turn out to be a very trouble-free relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say this thread has been extended beyond its useful life. I honestly cannot see the point of the OP's disappointment with the agency; the only way it would make sense is if he sees the agent as his representative, fighting to get him the best deal, and so on, which is simply not the way it works.

OP, we're not going to agree, but do try at least make the situation work for you. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a landlord who knows what their rights and responsibilities are (there's no GUARANTEE that an employee of an agency will know this, but surely the chance of it is higher than with a normal landlord). This may turn out to be a very trouble-free relationship.

mods, mac says close the thread, so ;) ...

for the record mac, the landlord has already failed to meet their responsibility in other areas and the agency has sat on their side big time. with me + previous tenant.

no conflict of interest, of course not :lol::lol: good grief common sense not taught any more

Edited by loginandtonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is a conflict of interest plain and simple -

it couldnt be any clearer,

whether its in law or old fashioned common sense,

its a conflict of interests when an agent's employee is the landlord.

You are in a muddle about this. Define conflict of interest.

To me, conflict of interest is where Agent

  • should get highest price out of duty to client

  • seeks to get lowest price when employee buys or rents personally from client

if i offer to buy a pot from you as agent and you are selling it for your employee rather than selling it for an otherwise non connected third party, because you see your employee on a daily basis and have a concern for their welfare as your employee in all sorts of ways, you are sitting in a big puddle of conflct of interests, and one day it'll get tested and proven in court, mark my words

In this case Agent

  • seeks to get highest price from customer out of duty to client

  • seeks to get highest price from customer out of loyalty to employee

That is clear.

As customer, agent will always seek highest price from you, there will never be a conflict of interest which affects you. Conflict of interest only affects a client, eg where the agent should seeks to get highest price, but might not if the Agent adopts the role of customer.

Understand that you are never a client, and always a customer if you are buying or renting. Only if you are a client can you suffer from conflict of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mods, mac says close the thread, so ;) ...

I think that the thread should stay open. The majority of threads stay open forever and it is not right IMO for mods to make a decision to close a thread because someone thinks you have been answered fully.

for the record mac, the landlord has already failed to meet their responsibility in other areas and the agency has sat on their side big time. with me + previous tenant.

no conflict of interest, of course not :lol::lol: good grief common sense not taught any more

Landlord failing to meet responsibilities is just that. It is common sense that this is bad. But it is not common sense that it is a conflict of interest on the part of the Agent to support the Landlord, it is a misunderstanding on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for goodness sake I wasn't actually calling for the mods to close the thread. Let things continue if people still have things to say. By posting I myself am continuing the thread - oh the IRONY!

OP, if you are having problems with your landlord, get yourself educated with regard to your rights as a tenant (HPC is probably the best place to start) and get started with your negotiations, court case, whatever. If you have a bad landlord, then give them a kicking (metaphorically, of course). It wasn't the fact that your landlord is working for the agency that makes him bad, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for goodness sake I wasn't actually calling for the mods to close the thread. Let things continue if people still have things to say. By posting I myself am continuing the thread - oh the IRONY!
:lol::lol::lol:
OP, if you are having problems with your landlord, get yourself educated with regard to your rights as a tenant (HPC is probably the best place to start) and get started with your negotiations, court case, whatever. If you have a bad landlord, then give them a kicking (metaphorically, of course). It wasn't the fact that your landlord is working for the agency that makes him bad, though.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes any difference.

The name and address of the landlord is on the tenancy agreement.

Perhaps the LL didn't want to deal with their T's directly. That's generally the reason LL's place their properties with LA's so that they can leave them to deal with any problems - maybe they prefer a colleague to do this. Maybe (like other LL's) they don't want to deal with the negotiations directly???

Agree with Mac and DV's comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in that situation. I can't remember exactly when I found out (they could have mentioned it at the viewing, or it might have been when I signed the contract) but it didn't bother me at all, and I never considered it odd or unexpected.

After all; EAs were the people most vulnerable to buying their own stories when they were talking up the market, and most in the line of temptation.

Edited by mikeymadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are in a muddle about this. Define conflict of interest.

[customer] "Hello, I'd like to view properties A and B"

[agent] "Tell us all about your requirements [...]"

....

[agent] "You'll love property C. It ticks all your boxes, and is in superb condition ..."

[customer] well, erm, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[customer] "Hello, I'd like to view properties A and B"

[agent] "Tell us all about your requirements [...]"

....

[agent] "You'll love property C. It ticks all your boxes, and is in superb condition ..."

[customer] well, erm, ...

Fair comment - I agree that if they are anonymous then they shouldn't be dealing with it themselves.

If they are dealing with it then I'm sure the prospective tenant would prefer to know that (in theory) the LL knows what they are doing and works there? Or is that just me being naive again?

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.