Upfront "agency Fees"

[Swansea Estate Agent]

Because the industry is not regulated.

[Swansea Estate Agent]

Just to add that anybody can set up a letting agency without knowledge, education etc.

The main problem is that many people like that have opened up letting agencies. Most of them are unemployed estate agents.

Once one starts doing something to make more money, then others follow.

[inflating]

Because the industry is not regulated.

Thank you but isn't the government supposed to act if a member of the public tells them that XYZ Letting Agency in Anyville is doing something that could be contrary to common law? The govt, the OFT, Shapps, anybody?? - whether regulated or not?

Is it because so many lettings agencies have set up and done the same thing (charged both sides) that it has actually evolved into being "accepted" as legal, like a sign-less field that people walk across and which becomes a right of way for them after x years?

[VacantPossession]

Some agents in Swansea charge up to a months rent. If you are on housing benefits, then most agents will not touch you unless you can pay around 4-6 months rent in advance plus around 1 months rent in fees.

In the UK tenants used to have very few rights and LL's would just kick none paying/problem tenants out without a fuss, but now tenants have got many rights which makes evicting tenants legally a very long and costly process. I have seen many LL's lose their properties because they have had none paying tenants in and not been able to keep up their mortgage repayments. Sometimes it is easier and cheaper to give the property to the bank and walk away.

Due to the vast amount of problems that we now face with none paying/bad tenants it is a full time job for one person on one property dealing with issues and when you have multiple properties and a full time job, then you have no option other than employing an agent. Of course on the flip side there are plenty of hassle free tenancies. I would estimate that 20% of tenancies that we deal with end up with major issues over rent payments and the time spent on these problems is unbelieveable.

There are bad tenants and bad landlords, but in my view the bad tenants are generally specific to regions which tend to provide very poor rented housing anyway. There is a statistical relationship between the provision of good, reasonably priced housing and an commensurate high standard of tenant behaviour. In other words, if you provide garbage, and muck tenants about, they will respond in kind.

Taking advantage of local authorities is another chapter in itself. Landlords tend to push up the rent when they see council officers involved, since the latter rarely properly investigate the true market rate. A huge proportion of my council tax goes towards paying highly inflated housing benefit costs which could be better contained if councils would take the trouble to challenge the price hikes.

I would estimate that over 85% of letting agency illegally charge upfront fees to prospective tenants, and also charge absurdly high fees for referencing and frankly bonkers extras liking "drawing up the lease" (which they photocopied from the last batch). The fact that most of these charges are actually a crime doesn't seem to deter anyone, and that indicates just how poorly OFT and other organisations monitor these activities.

As for Shelter, I humbly submit this organisation is lamentably out of touch with both legislation and practice. Its website is full of innacuracies, assumptions and simply wrong information, most of which fails to properly assist the tenant as to his or her rights. For example, Shelter does not vigorously challenge all sorts of dubious fees of the kind this thread has highlighted. In the arena of proper tenancy advice, I believe Shelter is hopeless. Citizens Advice Bureaux are not much better. Lastly there is an appalling lack of proper information circulated by government and local authorities regarding bad practice by, and/or regulation of, letting agencies.

I have yet to come across a single letting agency that isn't rotten to the core, though our friend from Swansea appears to be a noble exception. This is no surprise since there is effectively zero meaningful legislation which polices them.

Edited August 20, 2011 by VacantPossession

[inflating]

There are bad tenants and bad landlords, but in my view the bad tenants are generally specific to regions which tend to provide very poor rented housing anyway. There is a statistical relationship between the provision of good, reasonably priced housing and an commensurate high standard of tenant behaviour. In other words, if you provide garbage, and muck tenants about, they will respond in kind.

Taking advantage of local authorities is another chapter in itself. Landlords tend to push up the rent when they see council officers involved, since the latter rarely properly investigate the true market rate. A huge proportion of my council tax goes towards paying highly inflated housing benefit costs which could be better contained if councils would take the trouble to challenge the price hikes.

I would estimate that over 85% of letting agency illegally charge upfront fees to prospective tenants, and also charge absurdly high fees for referencing and frankly bonkers extras liking "drawing up the lease" (which they photocopied from the last batch). The fact that most of these charges are actually a crime doesn't seem to deter anyone, and that indicates just how poorly OFT and other organisations monitor these activities.

As for Shelter, I humbly submit this organisation is lamentably out of touch with both legislation and practice. Its website is full of innacuracies, assumptions and simply wrong information, most of which fails to properly assist the tenant as to his or her rights. For example, Shelter does not vigorously challenge all sorts of dubious fees of the kind this thread has highlighted. In the arena of proper tenancy advice, I believe Shelter is hopeless. Citizens Advice Bureaux are not much better. Lastly there is an appalling lack of proper information circulated by government and local authorities regarding bad practice by, and/or regulation of, letting agencies.

I have yet to come across a single letting agency that isn't rotten to the core, though our friend from Swansea appears to be a noble exception. This is no surprise since there is effectively zero meaningful legislation which polices them.

If I understand you correctly, the OFT simply are not investigating and stopping something they should be stopping, and when I wrote to them on this mentioning the conflict of interests et al they should have asked for details and sent Trading Standards to the agencies in the South East that I had mentioned to them. Yet they did not, and if memory serves me correctly I was not given any further options.

Tenants faced with these fees therefore only have the county court as their remedy?

Perhaps some newspapers ought to highlight the fact letting agency fees are illegal if they are?

If something isn't regulated it can break the law at will? Right across the country? And the OFT etc do nothing, for years and years now?

Sounds incredible

[VacantPossession]

If I understand you correctly, the OFT simply are not investigating and stopping something they should be stopping, and when I wrote to them on this mentioning the conflict of interests et al they should have asked for details and sent Trading Standards to the agencies in the South East that I had mentioned to them. Yet they did not, and if memory serves me correctly I was not given any further options.

Tenants faced with these fees therefore only have the county court as their remedy?

Perhaps some newspapers ought to highlight the fact letting agency fees are illegal if they are?

If something isn't regulated it can break the law at will? Right across the country? And the OFT etc do nothing, for years and years now?

Sounds incredible

Yes I think you are right. OFT is already inundated with complaints, as much about themselves as stuff they are supposed to address. Similarly local trading standards are overwhelmed, under-financed, and hopelessly out of touch with their own remit. This is the consequence of pigeon-chested announcements by government of better regulation which is never matched by hard cash. To my mind there is also a pathetic kind of half-hearted response by regulatory bodies. I think they become so jaundiced and drowned in the avalanche of complaints that their only response is to become immune to the very thing they are supposed to address.

I think a certain kind of personality is well-adapted to fighting cases that need addressing. Unfortunately that kind of personality is filtered out in regulatory body interviews through a fear that someone might overstep the mark. Hence almost all of the public and charitable bodies dealing with the ghastly exploitation of the innocents become anodyne, ineffectual and complacent.

Essentially, anyone who wishes to challenge the entrenched powers that be, whether it is tenancies or for that matter parking-clamp abuses, needs to have the intelligence of a Queen's council, the nose of a bloodhound, the stubbornness of a mule, the tenacity of a boxer, the cheek of the devil and a total devotion to face the wind however heavy the gale. Those kinds of people are very rare.

[inflating]

VP, thanks for the reply. If I can find the OFT letter (it's in England, I'm abroad at the moment) I'll post the essence of their reply which was pretty much "you're on your own sunshine"

[porca misèria]

Essentially, anyone who wishes to challenge the entrenched powers that be, whether it is tenancies or for that matter parking-clamp abuses, needs to have the intelligence of a Queen's council, the nose of a bloodhound, the stubbornness of a mule, the tenacity of a boxer, the cheek of the devil and a total devotion to face the wind however heavy the gale. Those kinds of people are very rare.

And the willingness to resort to dubious means to get the job done.

The recent trouble over 'phone hacking' will have served to make life easier for con-men and scammers everywhere, as another blow is dealt to those who might investigate and expose them.