letting agent renting property to a sex offender.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes, that's exactly what I've done. I wouldn't deem it appropriate to disclose any criminal conviction of a prior occupier. But certain convictions may be in the public interest.

    My first hand experience of this precise situation tells me that this type of conviction has a chance of increased risk to the property and it's future occupiers and I would take the stance of being open and honest about it rather than waiting for the next tenant to scream at me because someone's written "a nonce lives here" across their front door.

    It's about protecting myself and my business from accusations of withholding relevant information rather than taking an unnecessary risk.

    If the landlord won't accept that, he is free to use another agent.

    Comment


    • #17
      I think many 'agents' are so only in name, combined with irrationality as soon as 'sex offender' is mentioned.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
        I think many 'agents' are so only in name, combined with irrationality as soon as 'sex offender' is mentioned.
        I think you've missed the point that Hantsagent is trying to make.

        Agents are not providing a public service. They are not obliged to take on any customer. They can refuse business if they wish. If an agent thinks that any particular customer is not worth the risk or cost of taking on, or if they don't agree with particular views espoused by those customers (providing they adhere to all laws regarding race, disability or sexuality - remember the case of the cake makers in NI who refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding?)) then they are free to decide what business to accept or refuse.

        Personally, if I was an agent and there had been issues with a particular address because of a previous sex offending tenant, I'd also decline to accept the business, as my reputation would be worth more to me than a single fee. Where it would present a dilemma is if the landlord also had another 100 properties that I managed for him. Would I put that business at risk? Of course not!

        Comment


        • #19
          And you are missing my point. No-one suggests a public service, and I am quite emphatically claiming the opposite: An agent works in the interests in his principal. If anything it is Hantsagent suggesting a public service.

          Remember that we haven't been told of any issue other that an ex-tenant being a registered sex offender for an unknown reason. Based on this I don't see a reason for an agent to effectively refuse to let the property by alarming every prospective tenant.

          Comment


          • #20
            Cross purposes I think.

            Take 2 contrasting scenarios:
            1. Sex offender lived in a property, all was fine, left, and the agent was asked to re-market the property.
            2. Sex offender lived in a property, got loads of abuse and graffiti on the door, left and the agent was asked to re-market the property.

            In 1, I agree, no reason to not accept the instruction and no reason to make any declarations to viewers.

            In 2, I believe an agent is well within his rights to turn down the instruction. If he accepts it, he would be well advised to declare to potential viewers what the situation is, for all the reasons that Hantsagent has said.

            Common sense, no?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by security2 View Post
              In 1, I agree, no reason to not accept the instruction and no reason to make any declarations to viewers.
              Well, that's all I have been saying.

              Unless OP didn't told us everything this seems to be the scenario. I'm trying to focus on OP's scenario, not to imagine every possible scenario.

              In fact I previously wrote that the specific scenario should be considered rather than having a blanket policy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by security2 View Post
                the cake makers in NI who refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding?
                for the record, that wasn't what they refused to do. They refused to make cake that had a pro-gay marriage slogan because it conflicted with their personal beliefs. And they lost their case on the basis that they could not discriminate if they aim to offer a service to the general public... which kind of undermines your argument.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Apologies for the tardiness, been on holiday.

                  Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post

                  I'm trying to focus on OP's scenario, not to imagine every possible scenario.
                  And I offered a scenario which could happen and has happened to me to possibly explain why the agent is behaving the way they are.

                  You seem to think that your opinion is fact, it isn't.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That's not the same scenario for all we know, so not really relevant.

                    I'm only saying and repeating that the specific case should be considered instead of having a blanket policy as you seem to suggest.

                    I expect agents not to criticise each others.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have never said nor suggested a blanket policy. You’re reading things which aren’t there.

                      And I don’t understand your last sentence. Is there a missing apostrophe or should agents be singular?

                      Regardless, which agent is critisicing another?

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X