Monthly Archives: April 2012

You are browsing the site archives by month.

By Steve Roulstone

 

Having been commentating on daily matters for two years now, you would think that I would have covered most things and indeed the subject of today’s post has been touched on before, but two situations that developed yesterday are both worthy of comment and one was a first for me!

 

Normal practise.

 

As Agents, we do everything possible to respond to repairs and breakdowns as soon as we possibly can, (or should I say as soon as our Contractors can) Not that some Tenants feel this is good enough, but we even advise Landlords who want their own contractors to deal with any issues surrounding their house, that unless they have worked for Letting Agents before, the only issue we are liable to have is the response time that our contractors understand we require. In reality though, we can of course only react to what we are told.

 

Phone call number 1 and 2.

 

Yesterday we received a call saying a heating system had stopped working and would we get somebody to sort it out. The answer was yes of course, but as we always do, we pointed out that should the problem be something like a dead battery or drop of pressure, because boiler instructions are always left at every house, it could be that any costs would be put to the Tenant. (Imagine if we did not and then told the Tenant they must pay) Contractor was arranged and before they arrived, we received a call saying the problem was resolved and we of course cancelled the call out.

 

Phone call number 3

 

We then received a call from the same Tenants partner suggesting that we should have allowed the call out to proceed because the heating still does not work and what were we doing cancelling the initial call out. We of course said because we were told too, and this Tenant then asked if we were blaming his partner for failing to repair the boiler!?

 

Star gazing.

 

The difficulty here apart from cancelling the initial call out, is the level of expectation from the Tenant. We would not wish to make any statement about where the fault lay, but the problem for the second Tenant was that we had cancelled the first call and could not arrange another visit on the same day, when his call was made at 4.45pm. It is of course unreasonable to have contractors standing ready to react. Like all Agents we build up relationships with our contractors, so they will react as quickly as they can for our Landlords, but nobody can reasonably expect to firstly carry on with the call when advised we need not and secondly get somebody to call that day with so little of it left!

 

Broken Lock.

 

The second instance was a Tenant who had both a locked door to her flat and a second external locked door to the outside. The door to the outside had a lock that failed, which resulted in a phone call to us about the lack of security. The problem here was that the call came on a Sunday evening and the door could still be locked by sliding the bolt. If a member of our staff had received the call, we would have said talk to the neighbour who shared the door and ensure all is safe until tomorrow, when we will get a contractor out. With a second lockable door that should have been sufficient.

 

Wrong number.

 

The problem arose when the Tenant phoned the emergency number they had been given when they moved in to the property, which we no longer relied upon, using our own staff to cover the phone for the last two years. We wrote to everybody at the time advising them to use the new number. The Tenant could not find the letter! The Contractor reasonably listening to a call from a single young Lady reacted and repaired the lock. The Landlord received an invoice for £65 and the Tenant had a good night’s sleep.

 

Who pays?

 

Technically we could have charged the Tenant, or refused the invoice from the contractor for reacting prior to instruction, but that would have upset somebody who reacted in good faith and is one of the people we do rely upon when true emergencies do occur. A no win situation for us, because from the Tenants point of view, she believed she was also asking the work to be completed and allowed the contractor to carry out the work in good faith! Luckily, the Landlord understood and accepted the charge.

 

Conclusion.

 

My conclusion is that no matter how hard we try, these things are going to continue to happen and Tenants will still feel they should receive a response when they wish and without delay. There are of course times when these matters are truly out of our hands such as unavailable parts. But we must keep plying our message taking every opportunity to explain the reality. That does not change my request, which would be that Tenants understand that they will receive a response that is quicker than most other scenarios and especially when compared to the average home owner requesting the same services.

 

By Steve Roulstone     

    

As the property market trundles on with its slow recovery, one thing that is noticeable is the increase in the number of people who are considering purchasing a property again for their rental market. In many cases this is existing Landlords who have property with us already and have arrived at the position where they have built a deposit to purchase another property, for as we all know, a significant deposit is now needed before a mortgage can be agreed. But we are also being asked by people looking to buy for the first time, as property becomes the preferred investment because of the lack of return from deposit accounts and the continued risk of traditional share investment markets.

Good planning.

I would have to say, that for those who chose tracker mortgages the current return from rental property has been significantly improved. Far from the reported problems that Landlords are supposed to be suffering when house prices dropped, good planning has led to an increase in revenue as the mortgages have dropped significantly. This has meant an opportunity, be it delayed as a sufficient deposit has been saved, for further purchases to be made and at a time, as I have reported recently, when property prices have started to grow again.

Sound advice.

But even for those who own property, it is always a good idea to discuss and visit the principles about what makes a good Buy to Let property again. This means that we are being asked to advice people more and more and we are always happy to do so. Our principal has always been good honest clear advise, even if it means saying no to a current opportunity, will in the long run, either when a potential Landlord returns or because of word of mouth that our advice can be trusted even when it does mean telling somebody that a property is not right for the rental market, will eventually pay off and at least we can sleep well at night!

 Points to consider.

So when considering property there are two areas that we believe should be considered in some cases even before you visit the property, so before a viewing is arranged, consider the following:

 Area concerned; Is it a popular area of the Town or City you are looking at. Or is the village on a sensible route.

Popularity of type of property; Is this the right property for the market. Flats or Family homes (such as three bed semi detached) are the common decision to be made and at times, depending on the size of available deposit, a careful look will be needed

Open to all markets; Such as is there a bath? Don’t forget that only having a shower will cut out everybody with small children.

Property facilities; Where are the local shops, bus routes, what are the standard of the local schools and where is the centre that people will head to for entertainment. This may not be important to you, but it will be for the Tenant.

Once inside.

The obvious consideration when you actual view the property is how much work has been done to the property and by whom? I have actually been in a property this week that has been altered beyond comparison from the original build, but by a builder owner and you can see the quality as soon a s you step inside. But be careful, I have also been in a property that a DIY enthusiast had left in such a poor state that three occupants could have been killed by fumes from the fire, electrocuted in a bath of water and by using too many appliances in a kitchen, and all the other occupants of the road would have known would have been a dimming of the lights!

List the advantages.

 Then most importantly, list all the good points. Do this when you are comparing property and you will find a decision can quite often be made for you! Garage or car-port? Drive or on road parking? En-suite or not? Conservatory or not? Low or high maintenance garden? One or two reception rooms? The property that ticks the right number of boxes will be the one that is more popular.

Good value.

This means that price is not the most important consideration, but when the bricks and mortar continue to be the main investment and the rent should serve to pay the rent and allow you to build up a maintenance reserve, that value will in the end remain constant and the property should produce less down time (between Tenants) and that of course, is what we as Agents strive to produce for all of our Landlords.

By Mike Edwards

Part 2 of the top reasons why Landlords should choose a Letting Agent are included in this concluding post.

 

6.         They can often get you a better rent

Many letting agents are used by relocation agents and companies willing to pay high prices for the right property. Usually these companies will only use professional agents for sourcing property for their clients. This is because they are aware that they are going to get a consistent responce when being dealt with. Relocation is a part of the industry that is very specailaised and can be drawn out at times, especially when dealing with clients from abroad. They need to know they will be dealt with in a way that will not leave them sorting out issues that most Agents will already be aware of, such as type of agreement and security of deposit.

7.         They will get a proper inventory done and deal with the deposit for you

A really good inventory is absolutely essential nowadays if not the most important document involved and landlords who are taken to adjudication by their tenants will have little chance of winning without one. A good letting agency will often have staff specially trained to do this work and will usually be able to do a much better job than you can. There are also specialist software packages that are marketted at Agents and are sensibly only affordable by Letting Agents. There is also the advantage that if the matter ever does go to arbitration, the fact that the inventory was drafted up by an independent third party (your agent) will often mean that it is given greater weight by an adjudicator than one that was drafted up by you, the landlord. Your agent will also deal with protecting the deposit properly, making sure that all the proper information is given to the tenant within the time limits.

8.         They will deal with checking and referencing your tenant

A good agent will carefully screen and reference all prospective tenants as a matter of course. Not just by way of collecting letters, but through a professional Referencing body. This does not always mean that there are no problems later, but it certainly reduces the chances of this happening. It is a fact that those who have caused trouble in property before as a Tenant, know that they will not be able to pass a proper referencing investigation. Agents may also be able to recognise known bad tenants, and also recognise the signs of a bad or criminal tenant (for example one who is thinking of converting your property into a cannabis factory).

9.         They will deal with any problems that arise during the tenancy

There is a lot of work involved in renting property and it is not all just finding the tenant. Often problems arise at the property – for example minor repairs that need doing.  Tenants also sometimes lock themselves out and need helping. A good agent will also carry out regular inspections to make sure that the tenant is looking after the property properly and that all is well there. 

And finally:

 Finally of course there is the fact that most landlords really don’t want to be bothered with the tedious business of dealing with tenants, and agents take the burden of this away from them. A really good agent can be a blessing to a landlord. At the risk of being accused of agent bashing again, I do need to say here that not all agents are like this. I do feel strongly that agents SHOULD be regulated. If only for the benefit of all the good agents who inevitably, and most unfairly, get tainted by the press reports about the bad agents. The ones that don’t do their job properly and run off with all the money. 

By Steve Roulstone

One of the areas that crop up again and again when we are going about our job, is the relationship between ourselves as Agents of the Landlord and our prospective and actual Tenants. It is and always has been in our interests to have good relationships with our Tenants and we continue to promote that at all times, but when it comes to our position legally we have to consider the Landlord above the needs of the Tenant and it is this stance which is often mis-understood!

Tenant’s rights.

 We do of course give the Tenants duty of care, but two situations have arisen this morning which yet again could and possibly does leave us looking like ‘bad boys’ if we proceeded and made what we believe to be the best decisions in the interests of the Landlord. The first issue surrounds another Tenant viewing and proceeding with a property before a second prospective Tenant had viewed. There was a statement made about who was due to see the property first which we could not agree with as we do not give preferential rights of viewing as a Company Policy.  

I saw it first!

This is simple enough to understand, if the first person to phone cannot view for a week, do we stop others who can view today? No because it would not be in the interest of the Landlord and our decision is an easy one! In this case what has clouded the issue for the prospective Tenant, is that they felt they had been promised to be shown first but as we never do give such promises, because it is never in the interests of our Landlords, this would simply never be the case. It is more likely that there was a misunderstanding of what was being asked and promised, but it ended with a nasty phone call to myself and my staff which of course is not acceptable for either party.

Best Tenant.

The second problem was one where in asking for information to assist finding a property for a potential Tenant, nothing has been forthcoming since we asked from the Tenant. Now when they ask to view a property again, which we know will be impossible without the information, do we tell them no without delay? We are of course always charged to find the best Tenant at all times for our Landlords and that inevitably means making decisions. We have to otherwise we would not be doing our job.  But it is highly likely this situation will again end up with a disappointed party, but we are not bound to find property for all who contact us, just those we believe will be good Tenants.

Overriding facts.

In every situation we are bound to make the decision that is in the best interests of our clients and that is our Landlords. This means disappointing some who contact us. But until Tenants understand that we have a legal commitment to serve our Landlords and that overrides any duty of care towards Tenants  (unless that neglect of duty includes an illegal act or stance) such issues will continue to occur. What of course we can hope is that not every time someone does not get what they want it does not end up in aggressive phone calls. 

By Steve Roulstone

With the recent change in EPC regulations, we like many other Agents turned to our advisors and asked for clarification of what the changes meant and what was there considered practical way they could advise us to adopt the changes as required. The answer we received raised more questions than it answered and we were left none the wiser. It appear that the manner in which the changes have been introduced have left those who carry out the inspections at a quandary in understanding what is now required.

Agents requirements.

The main change for Letting Agents is to have the EPC available within seven days of the property being marketed. I am pleased to say that this was our own timetable anyway but always done with the knowledge that we had longer if the EPC was not forthcoming. No for us the clarity needs to be around what is meant by an electronic copy, when the report from the RLA states that the new format should be used after April 1st, but fails to say if this is ONLY for new EPC’s created rather than an updated version of the old certificate.

Words speak volumes.

 Some reports suggest that this is the case, but when you attempt to download EPC’s that are still current but were produced in the old format, they are still in the old format! So ‘the powers that be’ need to clarify for those concerned what they should or should not be doing. It becomes more of a problem when those that are supposed to be advising do not know themselves!

Simple guidelines.

At present we are ensuring we are operating in a manner best suited to the intent of these changes until we receive total clarity, which means we will avoid any unnecessary costly changes to our systems whilst still providing the information when requested and ensuring one is available without delay.

These guidelines will hopefully assist in the meantime:

1. When viewing a property ideally an EPC or at least the new front page should be “available”

2. Available means it can be in electronic format

3. An EPC MUST be commissioned immediately on marketing if existing one not available

4. Long as you can prove you have commissioned then for up to 7 days you can view and market without one. It is an offence but there is no penalty!! It is after 7 days that it becomes more serious

5. The eventual winning tenant MUST be given a copy of the full EPC when the contract starts i.e. at check-in.

By Steve Roulstone

In surfing the net for Current Property News, I note with interest two sets of figures that have been published this week. Firstly the Rightmove calculation of asking prices throughout the country and secondly The Average House guide published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Bothe offer many varied statistics, breaking down details by region and County as well as National.

Significance of the gap.

When you look at the two headline figures, it is quiet significant that the asking price on average across the Country is £20,000 higher than the actual selling price and with the push of the Rightmove report being that on average house prices are at an all time high again across the Country, it does look as if sellers, knowing they will get offers no matter how the word the price within sales particulars, are asking at a higher level and negotiating on average a 10% lower price than that asked for.

Significant difference.

But what is also apparent is that the difference in average prices between London and the rest of the Country is vast and still growing. Since the peak of 2008, prices in London have risen by 14.9% whereas prices in the rest of the UK have fallen by 4.3% during the same period. This such a significant swing that it does make the average figures somewhat irrelevant, but the regional figures given by Rightmove are very informative and definitely give significant information for those needing to track values across this time frame.

Solid information.

It is good for all interested parties to receive information both in this manner and broken down in to regional statistics that both reports give. For example I have a property myself that was initially marketed in late 2007, it is currently rented (no surprise there then!) but as the Tenant has asked about the opportunity to purchase, it is easy for me to work out what would be the current price using the averages published in these reports. Both parties can use then for the same reasons, definitely allowing initial conversations to take place without the expense or time needed to get the property re-valued.

Assistance.

I cannot see how this situation does anything but assist people by keeping them informed. For the professionals, some of the mystique of pricing houses is removed, giving the vendor and buyer better confidence in the asking price and indeed any offers made as well. A definite win – win situation and I applaud Rightmove in particular for the manner in which they present the information and make it easily available for all.

Look and you will find.

The only disappointment and yes there had to be one! Is that the BBC who I have oft criticised for the way in which they place a negative spin on anything to do with the housing market have chosen to scale down the amount of reporting now that the shock and horror of house prices falling has lessened and we have all learnt to live with what the market delivers? Like most, I see slow growth continuing which most commentators agree with. It seems the BBC is only happy to give more time to the housing market when it gives them the opportunity to report on bad news and it looks as though our market will continue to receive little air time from the BBC for the foreseeable future. Time will tell if I am right!

By Steve Roulstone

Just occasionally matters come to the point where faith in the system is not only renewed but also rewarded! The news we received this week is one of those cases.  We have a Landlord who has had great faith in dealing with the situation that was presented to them in a professional and thorough manner through the courts. Thankfully to a good conclusion as this was after we advised the Landlord that it was a case worthy of legal judgement,  ensuring that the Tenant was not allowed to get away with the state that they left the Landlords property in at the end of the Tenancy.

Ignored instruction.

We soon realised at the start of the Tenancy whilst doing our property visits that the house was not being cared for in the proper manner. General untidiness was soon becoming harmful to both the inside and outside of the house. We did everything we could to get the Tenant to carry out the work required, but in the end under instruction from the Landlord, following our advice, notice was given to leave. Any effort to keep the property in order at that stage ceased.

Check out.

When we then came to check the Tenants out of the property, the work needed to return the property to good order was vast! We photographed, noted, gained quotes and spoke to the Tenant about getting the work carried out. They disagreed, refused and eventually ignored all communications until the Landlord had no choice but to instruct the work in order for the home to be available for the rental market again.

Options.

 At this point we spoke again at length and in the end after looking at the cost of the dilapidations advised the Landlord to take the matter to court. This is of course a big decision to make, not only for the inevitable risk that such a decision brings with it, but also because of the actual task itself which can of course be daunting. The Landlords stood by their conviction and filed papers.

Courts take time.

Never was a statement more true. The original hearing was cancelled twice initially after sitting around all day to be told the court did not have enough time to hear the case, then at the Tenants request until a third date was finally set for this month and only now has the Landlord finally received a judgement. This made all the more understandable when you realise that the Tenant actually vacated in June 2010!!

Award.

But in the end it was worth it! The courts awarded the Landlord the whole of the claim for damages, the deposit in full and two months loss of rent because of the length of time it took to get the property fit for the market again. This is made all the better with the knowledge that the Tenant who replaced the person claimed against still enjoy living there and are treating the property as it should be treated by any good Tenant.

Summary

And what do we take from all of this? Well first of all that currently the law does not move quick enough to resolve matters for Landlords under such circumstances; it does not make sense for anybody to be left waiting for two years for a decision to be arrived at and even if it had been heard the first time the case was cancelled it would still have been nearly a year. That the reasons why such a case can be delayed for a further year are too lenient, because it should NOT be possible to postpone a hearing with such ease as was the case for the further delays suffered  and that Landlords need better help from the Deposit holding bodies, as this was a substantial amount they should not have been made to cope without when you consider the amount awarded to the Landlord by the Judge was over £3000.

The good side!

But thankfully the biggest conclusion is that it does pay to take your case to the courts. I of course do not know for sure, but people who leave property in such a condition probably hope the problem will go away because of the trouble needed to pursue the matter to conclusion, but also in the end the courts have awarded correctly and it proves that errant Tenants can be brought to justice if the Landlords have the strength of character to hold true!

By Steve Roulstone

There is no doubt that the deposit paid by Tenant has been viewed differently since the introduction of the TDP Legislation which has of course famously been updated by The Localism Act which has been introduced this month. It is not surprising when you consider the legislation is all about protecting the deposit, that most Tenants now look upon this as an amount of money that should by rights be returned at the end of the Tenancy no matter what the circumstances, rather than a deposit to be used against any damage made at the property during the term of the Tenancy.

Wrong perception.

The worst case I have heard of happened to us only last week, where a Tenant using that time old well worn phrase, ‘my friend told me’ continued to inform us that she did not have to clean the property as that was now considered to be fair wear and tear!  Well that was a first for me, what next, Landlords who should supply cleaners for Tenants?

Immediate implications.

The problem here of course is that because this person has been badly advised, the Deposit will immediately go into dispute if negotiation does not achieve agreement, and when you consider that one of the approved schemes actually charges their Agents dependent upon how many claims are made, it leaves us in a ridiculous situation that would, should we still be with that supplier, cost us money for a totally unnecessary case. Whatever happens, it would leave a bad taste in somebody’s mouth and as the Agent we would probably be the subject of the Tenants wrath. Fortunately, we have managed to explain the correct procedure and the Tenant has agreed to pay for the property to be cleaned.

Bad advice.

Of course once bad advice has been given, when we meet the Tenants at the property, where no cleaning has been done, it is too late to put right, as officially, the Tenant will have no access  after we have taken back the keys, otherwise they remain liable for the rent as well. Frustrating for us, especially as we write beforehand clearly pointing out the work that needs to be done prior to the check out appointment, which includes all cleaning and even state if the Tenant needs further assistance that they should not hesitate to be in touch (Of course we know if there is liable to be a big issue because of our property visits beforehand)

Perception.

For me it is clear that the legislation has meant that the deposit is perceived as something that should be returned if rent has been paid and the Tenant has been reasonable in their conduct whilst at the property. This is simply not the case. The deposit is present should rent not be paid yes, but also to ensure the Landlord has a fund to fall back on should the Tenant damage the property. What we should all realise (and I speak as a Tenant myself ) is that the longer we live at a property the more chance there is that damage will be caused. That is just a fact of life, not damaged on purpose, just a by-product of living in a home!

By Steve Roulstone

A letter recently published in my Local Stafford Paper, questioned the ability for some Tenants in difficult situations to be able to rent property in the town. The blame has been placed purely with the local Letting Agents, but takes a very simplistic view of the reasons why they have struggled. There are far more factors that need to be considered before any judgement can be made, and I am going to put the case for the agent through these pages.

 Law of Agency.

 Here it is again! But so many Tenants do not understand that we are bound by our (legal) agreement with the Landlord to give best advise under all circumstances. I offer a quote from a recent article by David Smith of Anthony Gold Solicitors, in The Negotiator magazine ‘this means that the Agent must act in his clients interests even where that produces a harsh outcome for the other party, in this case the Tenant’ I quote because I believe his words confirm the reality of our position better than any other description I have ever heard. So if a Landlord does not want pets, we would be breaking our legal agreement if we allowed Tenants with pets to move in to a house with express knowledge that they had. Equally, if a Landlord does not wish for Tenants in receipt of benefits then, we have to obey this instruction in exactly the same manner. We are not here to be judge or to offer succour to those in need, no matter how worthy the cause. We are here to follow our Landlords instruction, to the letter!

 The benefit system.

 There are several areas where the Benefits system fails to deliver for the Landlord, firstly, they pay four weekly in arrears. This means that the Landlord has to find more than a full month’s rent to keep his cash flow in order. Why, when we have sufficient Tenants who are able to pay rent in advance, should we suggest that the Landlord waits for their money and only gets a percentage of it (Yes it catches up eventually but not for a full year!) when they do receive payment. It is also paid direct to the Tenant now, and, as happened in our latest case, only when the rent was two months in arrears would the Council start to communicate with us as the Agent of the Landlord and only when the Tenant agreed, would the Council pay the rent direct to us. Please tell me why, under those circumstances should we encourage acceptance of Tenants in receipt of benefits. It would be good to say this was an isolated incident, and it would also be wrong to say that problems occur with all Benefit claimants. Unfortunately for those who do respect their commitment, most do not.

 Insurance.

 One of the (many!) benefits of using an Agent, is our ability to have the Tenants professionally referenced. All Agents should use a referencing Company whose acceptance of the Tenants automatically places the Landlord in a position to take Landlord Insurance to protect the Rent and pay Legal expenses should they be needed. Now because the system works well and because Agents know how to manage and control debt, the policies are still available in some instances for less than £100 per year (I only quote this figure as an example, because with FSA regulations in mind, I am not able to discuss the benefits of one Company above another!) If this was a policy that was relied upon again and again by Landlords it would cost far more, so it confirms without any doubt, that the referencing system works! Finally, no Agent worth their salt should, in my opinion, operate without the ability to offer Rent and Legal Expenses Insurance. Otherwise, how can it be argued that they are giving best advice to their clients?

 Guarantors.

 If a Tenant does not earn sufficient income, they may need a Guarantor; this is the natural manner in which income short fallings are balanced against the Industry standards used for income calculations. However, all Guarantors MUST be able to afford the rent. Look at the situation from the Tenants point of view, if a Tenant who could not afford the rent was moved in to a property without any check at all, it could be argued very easily that the Agent or Landlord had acted without due care to the Tenant, placing them in a position where they are unable to afford the commitment they have made. No different than being oversold items on Higher Purchase! Now, if they are able to provide a Guarantor, I can see no difference (and neither can the Industry) in what they should also be able to afford! Just because somebody agrees to be a Guarantor does not mean that the Tenant is automatically protected. The legal agreement clearly confirms that the Guarantor is responsible for the Tenants short fallings which includes all financial matters involved with the Tenancy. Now again, if we just accepted people on face value and they suddenly found themselves with a bill they could not pay, have we done our duty as Agents? Under such circumstances the Guarantor could easily claim to have been unfairly treated.

 Financial limits.

 Finally, the rates at which affordability calculations are judged, are not the responsibility of the Lettings Industry. They are developed and run by the financial referencing organisations, from whom Letting Agents are only responsible for using their services, not the manner in which they operate. We are all faced with rules that we have to abide by that we have input into the detail would be very rare. This is one such position. But as I have indicated before, such organisations and Insurance companies are subject to the law in the FSA regulations they must abide by. What we should NOT do is blandly allow people to be referenced for a property they cannot afford.

 Summary.

 So, it is very easy to blame the Industry and Agents in particular, but there are wider issues and pictures that need to be considered. That these people who were the reason for writing this piece have had difficulties because they are on Disability Allowance and Housing Benefit, I say they should look to the social organisations that are supposed to help them, rather than the Industry that on the face of it would have to break several codes of conduct to accommodate them. We are not able to move people in too a property against the Landlords wishes, we cannot ignore referencing and neither can we place our Landlords in a position where they cannot take the benefits of the most basic of Industry Insurance Policies. We cannot ignore the possible implications of accepting Housing Benefit Tenants and neither should we ignore what a Tenant and Guarantor can or cannot afford. Rather than being unfair, when you consider our legal position and to whom we are responsible, that is being Professional!   

 

By Steve Roulstone

One of the areas that crop up again and again when we are going about our job, is the relationship between ourselves as Agents of the Landlord and our prospective and actual Tenants. It is and always has been in our interests to have good relationships with our Tenants and we continue to promote that at all times, but when it comes to our position legally we have to consider the Landlord above the needs of the Tenant and it is this stance which is often mis-understood!

Tenant’s rights.

 We do of course give the Tenants duty of care, but two situations have arisen this morning which yet again could and possibly does leave us looking like ‘bad boys’ if we proceeded and made what we believe to be the best decisions in the interests of the Landlord. The first issue surrounds another Tenant viewing and proceeding with a property before a second prospective Tenant had viewed. There was a statement made about who was due to see the property first which we could not agree with as we do not give preferential rights of viewing as a Company Policy.  

I saw it first!

This is simple enough to understand, if the first person to phone cannot view for a week, do we stop others who can view today? No because it would not be in the interest of the Landlord and our decision is an easy one! In this case what has clouded the issue for the prospective Tenant, is that they felt they had been promised to be shown first but as we never do give such promises, because it is never in the interests of our Landlords, this would simply never be the case. It is more likely that there was a misunderstanding of what was being asked and promised, but it ended with an nasty phone call to myself and my staff which of course is not acceptable for either party.

Best Tenant.

The second problem was one where in asking for information to assist finding a property for a potential Tenant, nothing has been forthcoming since we asked from the Tenant. Now when they ask to view a property again, which we know will be impossible without the information, do we tell them no without delay? We are of course always charged to find the best Tenant at all times for our Landlords and that inevitably means making decisions. We have to otherwise we would not be doing our job.  But it is highly likely this situation will again end up with a disappointed party, but we are not bound to find property for all who contact us, just those we believe will be good Tenants.

Overiding facts.

In every situation we are bound to make the decision that is in the best interests of our clients and that is our Landlords. This means disappointing some who contact us. But until Tenants understand that we have a legal commitment to serve our Landlords and that overrides any duty of care towards Tenants  (unless that neglect of duty includes an illegal act or stance) such issues will continue to occur. What of course we can hope is that not every time someone does not get what they want it does not end up in aggressive phone calls.