Do agents collude with deadbeat tenants?

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

    Do agents collude with deadbeat tenants?

    This question has formed in my mind recently regarding my property in Jersey. Back in 2007 I had a lot of trouble finding tenants and tried three agents. The third agent, who I still have, has found me two tenants who have both turned out to be deadbeats. The first tenants were a man, his partner and his sister. I thought they'd be ideal, but very soon the neighbours reported they were subletting rooms to itinerant workers. I put a stop to that, but then of course the rent started being paid short.

    You'd think I'd have learnt my lesson with this agent, but I thought perhaps we were just unlucky. The 2nd tenant who moved in in 2011 gave my agent some story about her husband having bad credit, so the tenancy had to be in her name. Two months later he was in the local papers in court for embezzling £40k from his employer, and was sent to prison for 3 years.

    Since then, despite paying a reduced rent, my tenant has been very demanding about repairing damage that she herself has done, and my agent seems to bend over backwards for her. I'm beginning to wonder if she deliberately picks chavvy tenants so that she gets commission on the repairs required.

    Any thoughts?

    #2
    I guess there are some good agents, but in general the answer must be yes.

    I don't think the "gets commission on the repairs required" is the major motivator though. More the consequence of the growing disaster caused by government incentives that are shifting the whole sector into corporate ownership. Agents would far rather put non-deadbeats into their OWN properties. Most agents do not see their role as one of achieving the best for their client.

    Comment


      #3
      it always makes me wonder why the contract with an agent shouldnt set their fee at a percentage of the rent received and NOT at a percentage of the rent expected, especially wherever the agent has actually found and vetted the tenant !!!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by MisterB View Post
        it always makes me wonder why the contract with an agent shouldnt set their fee at a percentage of the rent received and NOT at a percentage of the rent expected, especially wherever the agent has actually found and vetted the tenant !!!
        Thanks for replying. Not sure I understand. I always pay a percentage of the rent received. Do you think I should pay a percentage of the rent expected?

        (I'm just imagining my agent would put my two bedroom flat in Reading up for £2000 pcm.)

        Comment


          #5
          I think its standard to pay a percentage of the rent expected. my suggestion was that could there be an alternative where the agents don't benefit from non payment of rent? It just doesn't make sense that agents get fees for sourcing tenants but no penalty if those that they source don't pay !

          if you already ONLY pay the agent a percentage of rent received, I assume you don't pay them anything when the tenants don't pay?

          in some cases agents wont care who they put in to a property - I could be cynical and suggest its in their best interests for tenants not to pay rent and therefore be evicted and then for them to source a new tenant. who of course would be a much better tenant .......


          as for the Reading flat, or anywhere, YOU should be setting the rent not the agents,

          Comment


            #6
            Oh, okay, I see what you mean.

            Funnily enough I agreed with my agent that I would not pay commission when rent was not forthcoming.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X