Amazing tenancy decline

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

  • Amazing tenancy decline

    After many years spent in the property field I have heard of many breath taking stories but this seems increadible. Wanting to move from leicester to Southampton (hythe) the prospective tenant finds a 3 bed detached property for £900 pcm, only wanting a 6 month sht and needing somewhere quick he offers 6 months paid upfront plus the £1000 deposit. There is therefore no need to assess ability to pay as its already paid. having rented for 4 years (same house 4 bd det) previous landlord nothing to complain about house in perfect condition. His wife has job in S/hampton but he will not start work until they get there being a self employed person. He gets declined because he does not have a job - some times agents / landlords want their cake and eat it and a bit of some one elses, O by the way the agent will keep the £280 Admin fee!!!! mmmm makes u think, any comments?
    Last edited by ChrisG; 10-05-2007, 17:23 PM. Reason: Spelling

  • #2
    Originally posted by ChrisG View Post
    any comments?
    Only that I make it a rule to give up on a post if I still can't understand it after the second read.

    Comment


    • #3
      Rubbish.

      Being self-employed, he already has a job whether it be selling himself to the next client or prospecting for new clients or keeping past clients happy for future work. All he needs is his past self- assessment returns.

      The letting agency has duped him if he explained that up front.
      ASSUME NOTHING - QUESTION EVERYTHING!

      Comment


      • #4
        an agent is not only assessing a tenants ability to pay but also their suitability as a tenant. No good getting a tenant in for 6 months with 6 months rent in advance if they stop paying after 6 months and it takes forever and a day to evict them!

        Agents still have costs to cover and its quite normal for these costs to be non-refundable.

        Comment


        • #5
          It is one of those where the agent should have referred it to the landlord for a decision - mine would together with their gut feelings. Maybe they did and the result was the landlords decision, but then...........

          P.P.
          Any information given in this post is based on my personal experience as a landlord, what I have learned from this and other boards and elsewhere. It is not to be relied on. Definitive advice is only available from a Solicitor or other appropriately qualified person.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree, we have recently had an application submitted from a couple. She works p/time he works on temp basis driving and also has a HM Prison pension of not much. Thus our referencing company failed them. However I Have his P60 from last stating his earnings which are very good so passed all info onto the owner and allowed them to make the decision, providing landlord also with our gut feelings about the couple.

            Suffice to say we have one happy landlord and two happy tenants!

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry to hear this has happened to you! There are many excellent tenants who don't have regular income, such as myself. It's never been a problem for me. I just tell the agent my situation at the viewing if I'm interested in taking the property and again as part of making my offer and the issue is referred to the landlord. So far it hasn't been a problem and I just pay the first six months upfront. Thereafter I pay monthly, have never missed a payment and everyone is happy. I explain that the six months payment is instead of employer references. No one has even batted an eye let alone asked for access to my accounts or proof of savings. If they did ask they wouldn't get so I make sure everyone understands this before I make any payments. If it came up afterwards I can see it would cause problems.
              ~~~~~

              Comment


              • #8
                spot on! be honest and upfront and you cant go far wrong!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you for your replies. I feel it is just another example of profiteering - charging £240 for a credit check (15 max) a few emails and a few phone calls. Unfortunately the whole industry is in need of regulation as many agents are now ripping off both the tenant and the landlord. The banks are at present suffering from their past dishonesty no doubt it will not be long before the estate agent/letting agent will be brought into line (wait for the howls of unfairness and how self regulation works). The majority of agents are above board but unfortunately the minority have spoilt it for all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ChrisG View Post
                    Thank you for your replies. I feel it is just another example of profiteering - charging £240 for a credit check (15 max) a few emails and a few phone calls. Unfortunately the whole industry is in need of regulation as many agents are now ripping off both the tenant and the landlord. The banks are at present suffering from their past dishonesty no doubt it will not be long before the estate agent/letting agent will be brought into line (wait for the howls of unfairness and how self regulation works). The majority of agents are above board but unfortunately the minority have spoilt it for all.
                    I agree that £240 does seem to be at the top end of fees, but it is a question of supply and demand. Round our way we cannot get more than £100 for the same service - this is because there are on the whole more properties than tenants. It certainly is not a case of agents "ripping off" tenants and landlords. Processing each letting from application through to moving in takes between 4 to 6 hours and as we offer a service to landlords and tenants, why should a landlord bear the whole costs of this? With our office staff time costing in excess of £40 an hour (including overheads such as administering a dedicated client account plus tenants protection legislation and other on-costs) running an agency is not cheap. Add to this the time taken doing viewings, and most agents you will find will do little more than break even - only making money from secondary activities that stem from letting property.

                    Most agents I know would welcome mandatory licencing. There is already provision for this in statute - it just need the Secretary of State to issue and get approval for a Statutory Instrument. However the government prefers "competition" to control the market - yet how many landlords and tenants make sure they use a NAEA, ARLA or NALS Agent that at least gives them some protection.

                    One thing is for sure - and I can't wait - once mandatory licencing in in place and the cheapie, poor service agents who undercut everyone are forced out, my fee structure will change - and you can be sure that NO FEES WILL BE REDUCED.

                    Regulation of Agents - Bring it on (x 3 - but restricted to 1)
                    On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Because of the number of posts I have done, I am now a Senior Member. However, read anything I write with the above in mind.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Do letting agents really think they are working for the tenant? As a tenant, I always feel cheated when I have to pay letting agents fees. A typical break down of "services" they offer includes;

                      1 - Inventory fee. This is purely for the landlord. If no inventory is taken then I am in a better position at the end of the tenancy regarding getting my deposit back than if on is taken.

                      2 - Arranging the contract. Why is this nearly always presented to the tenant, complete, on the day of moving in? During my last move, I asked for the contract a week in advance. I only saw it on the day I moved in. When I asked for one word to be changed to improve clarity, they said they wouldn't do it and if I didn't sign that day I would lose the house.

                      3 - Checking in fee. I could accept this as long as it is reasonable.

                      4 - Some new fee for the Deposit Scheme????

                      During the course of any tenancy, it is quite clear the letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. Surely I should be able to arrange a contract (20 GBP from WH Smiths) and an inventory myself if I am to be charged for these?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Agents always act for whoever appoints them -that's what agency means.
                        This is true of Estate Agents (act for V on sale), Letting Agents (act for L on letting), and Management Agents (act for L- whether a freehold reversioner or management co., or whatever- on management).
                        Purchasers/tenants/lessees should keep this in mind.
                        JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                        1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                        2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                        3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                        4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Imp View Post
                          Do letting agents really think they are working for the tenant? As a tenant, I always feel cheated when I have to pay letting agents fees. A typical break down of "services" they offer includes;

                          1 - Inventory fee. This is purely for the landlord. If no inventory is taken then I am in a better position at the end of the tenancy regarding getting my deposit back than if on is taken.

                          2 - Arranging the contract. Why is this nearly always presented to the tenant, complete, on the day of moving in? During my last move, I asked for the contract a week in advance. I only saw it on the day I moved in. When I asked for one word to be changed to improve clarity, they said they wouldn't do it and if I didn't sign that day I would lose the house.

                          3 - Checking in fee. I could accept this as long as it is reasonable.

                          4 - Some new fee for the Deposit Scheme????

                          During the course of any tenancy, it is quite clear the letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. Surely I should be able to arrange a contract (20 GBP from WH Smiths) and an inventory myself if I am to be charged for these?

                          I see your point the tenant pays for the landlords agreement, inventory etc would love to hear the howls of protest if the landlord had to pay the tenants removals sounds extremely silly but no differant.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          • Abandonment
                            buttons
                            I have had a phone call from the tenants daughter, (didnt know she existed), telling me he is leaving in two weeks. I told her he has nearly 4 months left on his 12 month AST. I subsequently got two calls from a housing association. asking for a reference for him, I told them the situation but they...
                            20-09-2017, 19:56 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            KTC
                            If the tenant holds a material interest of 6 months or more (i.e. during the 12 months AST), then the tenant is liable for council tax whether they are resident or not. During a SPT, the liability revert to the landlord when the tenant is no longer resident.
                            20-09-2017, 21:33 PM
                          • Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
                            koksy
                            I own a freehold house which has had the front garden paved over to provide off road parking. There is a dropped kerb in front of the garden and double yellow lines all the way across the front of the house.

                            The local neighbours are choosing to ignore the double yellow lines and keep parking...
                            20-09-2017, 18:22 PM
                          • Reply to Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
                            leaseholder64
                            The police really do not like dealing with this sort of thing, and you are unlikely to get a response, even though they could prosecute for obstructive parking. This is especially true given the double yellow lines, as they would prefer the council impose a civil penalty.

                            Although it will...
                            20-09-2017, 21:20 PM
                          • Reply to Tenant having parking issues trying to hold me responsible
                            security2
                            If someone blocked the public footway outside the front gate to the property so your tenant couldn't walk into the property, would he call you to get this rectified? Or would he call the police/council?

                            No different if its a car on the public highway or any other blockage on the public...
                            20-09-2017, 21:20 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            Wannadonnadoodah
                            May only be tenants who have housing benefit paid then.
                            20-09-2017, 21:17 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            buttons
                            This I believe is incorrect, I do have experience of that part happening before and sent the council a copy of the AST and they cancelled my charge....
                            20-09-2017, 21:14 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            Wannadonnadoodah
                            In the eyes of the council as soon as he starts paying CT at his new property the liability will fall to you regardless of what else is happening.
                            20-09-2017, 21:02 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            buttons
                            I thought you could have it so that property was marketed but he still had liability as he wont be able to pay anything as he is unemployed and would reduce his liability to council tax if let before the end of his tenancy.
                            20-09-2017, 20:48 PM
                          • Reply to Abandonment
                            KTC
                            Either you recover the property, or the tenant is still the tenant with liability for rent & council tax (during fixed term of 6 months or more). You can't have it both ways of getting the property back but not liable for council tax.
                            20-09-2017, 20:38 PM
                          Working...
                          X