A sector crying out for regulation

When Ken Livingstone’s idea of setting up a not-for-profit lettings agency first surfaced I have to admit I thought it was interesting but hardly a world beating proposal.  Since then I have not only warmed to the idea as a way of protecting tenants and stopping lettings agents from manipulating the market for their own ends but have also found that it really strikes a chord people who are amongst the many thousands using agents every week.  It has obvious advantages for tenants but landlords will also benefit: they feel let down and ripped off by agents as well.

The private rented sector is crying out for regulation.  Given that social housing and low cost home ownership are increasingly inaccessible, especially to younger people, we desperately need private renting to be successful and offer a fair deal for both parties.  As an industry it has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, it has to be modernised, professionalised and made subject to enforceable codes of practice.

I should say now that I know that some agents do behave ethically and have good standards and want to provide a decent service at a fair price.  They voluntarily sign up to existing codes and I welcome that.  But it is also a fact that landlords and tenants have endless complaints about what many agents do: their increasingly flash High Street premises cover up appalling inefficiency, bad practice, and self-serving behaviour.  When they are charging the landlord 8, 9, 10 or even 11 per cent of the first year’s rent simply for finding the tenant and setting up a standing order, you realise that margins are too high.  Landlords could get their service from a not-for-profit ethical provider for a lot less: this would either improve the landlords’ margin or, better still, reduce the rent.

Tales from the coalface.  A landlord is getting a good rent from a good tenant on a one year Assured Shorthold.  The tenant pays regularly and looks after the place.  The landlord does repairs promptly and responds quickly to any concerns raised.  The agent, who found the tenant, charges 11% for doing that and monitoring the standing order payment: their share is deducted up front so they get paid in full before the landlord sees a penny.  As the tenancy comes to an end, the agent tells the landlord that in current market conditions a 25% increase in rent is achievable.  The current tenant refuses to pay that much extra and decides to move.  The landlord, encouraged into avarice, agrees to put it on the market at the much higher level.  But in this case it is bullshit, the agent is trying to talk up the market and knows it will get 11% of the rent for a new tenant but their fee drops to 8% if the existing tenancy is renewed.  In the market, the new higher rent is unachievable; offers received represent an increase but nothing like 25%.  But then it is too late.  The tenant is gone, the flat is empty, and increases are below expectations.  Even when a new tenant is installed, the landlord loses money over the year because a month’s rent has been lost and they’re paying the higher agency fee.  The old tenant has lost a home they liked.  The only benefit is to the agent.

A second tale from the coalface.  Two young professionals are looking for a flat.  After many viewings they find what they want, move quickly and put on a holding deposit.  They think that means they have secured the flat but know they will lose their holding deposit if they do not close the deal with references and guarantors.  Unbeknown to them, the agent continues to show the flat to others and eventually gets a better offer.  The young professionals are flatly told they have lost the flat and they will get their deposit back in due course.  They have no recourse in law or otherwise: the agent says it was nothing to do with them and the landlord got the extra offer through another agent.

So partly this is about bad practice and partly it is just the poor system and the lack of regulation to blame.  In the second case, for example, the role of holding deposits should be defined and should mean something specific.

An ethical not-for-profit agency would operate to clear standards.  Action would be taken against landlords and tenants who fail to perform to the requirements.  There would be clear rules and expectations and transparency about what is going on.  Good existing agents would still be able to compete on price and could offer the same terms and rules.  But no landlord and no tenant would have any incentive to go to a rogue agency that serves itself.  Over time, the system should be backed up by legislation to fix good practice into law.  The market would operate much more efficiently.

So its a great idea.  A practical proposal that will make Londoners’ lives better and easier.  And when Boris Johnson and the agents’ lobby say the market will collapse if it is interfered with, tell them where to get off.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A sector crying out for regulation

  1. London Landlord says:

    [2] Tales from the coalface?_______________________________________________________________________
    “Unbeknown to them, the agent continues to show the flat to others and eventually gets a better offer. ”

    Don’t you have this backwards?. Why don’t you speak to Landlords who have been let down by tenants. There are tenant say they will take the flat and then not follow through by providing the paperwork. It can waste 2-3 days. These are serial tenants who go around saying “yes” to every property they like, so they have the luxury of choosing the best property. This blocks off the chances for other tenants to view the flat. It costs me advertising to re-new the advert. (in the old days, you would miss newspaper headlines….).

    I now make it clear to prospective tenants, viewing will “continue” until they bring the paperwork. Howeber, I do ‘slow’ down on viewings. When a calls come in, I take their numbers and explain, someone has seen the proeprty, but if it falls through, will get back to them.

    Taking up references are a pain. There are lots of disorganised tenants… they don’t keep payslips ordered, or they are missing the most recent 4 months statements are missing. No bank statements and only a receipt from a cash point, or they have internet only bank statements which are not possible to verify….

  2. London Landlord says:

    [1] Tales from the coalface?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Yes, you are right they are “tales”. They are not reality. I don’t know any landlord practice, where they advocate trying to push a tenant out, in favour of a higher paying one. As a Landlord, why should I disrupt the lives of tenants for the sake of a few extra quid?. If they have been good to me, then they deserve me to be fair with them. It is only right and proper.

    When a property becomes empty, it costs a lot to bring it back to a re-lettable state. It is neither economic or worth the hassle to change the tenant.

  3. London Landlord says:

    NOT FOR PROFIT LETTING AGENCY

    Ken has done everything he can to slur and damage the reputation of private Landlords. Does he really think, he has any goodwill left with landlords? Does he think, I will use his ‘not-for-profit letting agency’ after all he has been said and done.

    Ken has not bothered to talk to landlords, to understand their concerns and find out about the private rental sectors. Landlords are often the victim of bad tenants, and this is something that has been disregarded and is something which is the white elephant in the room. Tenants often don’t pay the the last rent causing, the deposit to be used, which leaves nothing to cover damage. This is often a tactic employed, which means we have a culture, where tenants have little incentive to look after the property. Unless, the losses exceed £800, it is not worth chasing the tenants (assuming they can be found). Even then, you have to place your faith that the Courts will give you justice, which they don’t often as they are anti-landlord.

  4. Junior says:

    Sorry we in Social Housing have no got a real Regulatory its Landlord Service Authorty and not a Tenant Service Authorty and now we have:-

    The recent review of housing regulation concluded that standards should be divided between ‘economic’ and ‘consumer’ standards. The regulator would have a ‘proactive’ role in relation to economic standards but only a ‘backstop’ role in relation to consumer standards.

    We have no one to turn to get satisfactory because it is not Customer scrutinineers its still Manangement Led and its still Mangement choosing the Customer to sit on the group

    Obnoxious Social Housing Landlord

    Look at the facts of what governments and social landlords and housing associations have been up to:
    Social tenants have been transferred, decanted, told they should leave their communities and go somewhere else;
    Secure tenancies abolished or stolen from tenants who had them;
    New and continuous attempts to bring in new eviction grounds;
    Massive unaccountable service charges brought in;
    Unaccountable Rent Charges brought in; (pricing them out of London)
    Massive Unaccountable Board’s and Chief Executive of Housing Association (that Customer’s cannot get a audience with)
    Massive Unaccountable Board’s and Chief Executive paying themselves exceed Wages and Rewards
    Lack of a National Body Tenant for Housing Association Customer’s representation elected by Customer themselves;
    New initiatives and changes in the complaint procedures and ombudsman brought in without bringing in new powers for Customer’s to control these are properly applied;
    A lack of legal aid, the ultimate resources for social Customer’s to have justice against landlords abuse;
    A asbos policies which do not give the victim any legal aid to prosecute them from social landlords and housing associations who do not protect them.

  5. local lass says:

    Something that would be really welcome would be to address the elephant in the room, length and security of tenure. I’d like, as I’m sure would many private renters who have faced the scenarios above, to see greater awareness of tenancies that have more than six months’ security. It’s perfectly possible in law to give 2, 3, even 5 year tenancies. Of course this is not promoted by agents (allthat lost commission) so campaigning and advocating for this would be both a vote winner and the right thing to do so people can raise families.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s