Tag Archives: Castle Estates

24Oct 2012

Current Property News: Landlords facing gas supply cuts through new regulations.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is very rarely that I print a headline designed to make people stop, but this is one. Following a criminal case into a death arising from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, a new test has been added to the Gas safety Certificate for Tenants concerning the inspection of joints in the flu where they pass through voids with no access. Simply put, it a joint cannot be accessed, it will fail. The consequences are a request to cut off the Gas supply and all the problems of a Landlord failing to provide space and water heating until the problem is corrected.

Immediate action.

This is a situation that needs immediate action, because it soon becomes clear that where problems occur, especially if property is in a block of leasehold flats for example. Therefore, all of our staff, and especially staff who carry out our three monthly visits, will be educated to understand where problems exist and highlight them as soon as possible.

Extent of problem.

What needs to be realised here, is not just which boiler flues may cause concern, but also the length of time that will be needed to correct the problem. As Letting Agents, we are well aware of how problems do occur during a Gas Safety Inspection, but 99 times out of 100 the work is completed on the day, or at the very worst the following day. That inspection hatches may need to be fitted points out just how long the work could take, before a system can be given the green light.

Spotted early.

This is why we are looking now and not waiting for the problem to occur. It is what we need to do as an Agent and where a potential problem exists we will supply the Tenant with a carbon Monoxide detector as soon as we are aware. We are also Block Managing Agents and being aware of where the responsibility lies, we will be advising all of our Leaseholders to review the situation and check for themselves. Finally, we will write to all of our Landlords and make them aware of the changes and implications.

Best advice.                 

There will be much more detail in the fall out over the introduction of these important and wide reaching changes. We are aware of one Landlord who owns a block of flats, who has had to fit inspection hatches in the living room of eight properties to comply. But more than anything else is the importance of ensuring a Tenant does not lose supply and heating for any length of time. One thing for sure is that a Tenant’s permission would need to be sought to allow the gas supply to be turned off, and without permission the Landlord is left in no man’s land with a system which cannot be licensed. Nobody would want this scenario to result in anybody’s death, but it is not a scenario I am going to allow to develop and this is why we are addressing it now.

Leasehold.

The Leasehold property owner faces an even worse scenario, as it may be the shared element of their building that hides the flue and then permission will need to be sought before any works can be carried out! This is another scenario that could take several weeks to be resolved and another reason why we are surveying our blocks for problems now, rather than wait for the problem to occur. We will do everything we can through being pro-active to ensure another tragedy does not occur under our Management.

Conclusion.

As a property owner, I am able to look at the action from both angles and as owners I can only recommend you do the same, or at least ask your property professional what they are doing on your behalf. One thing is sure, if nothing is done and your property comes under those that will fail, a whole new set of problems will occur and at that stage they may not be under your control!

03Oct 2012

Property Landlord advice: Good Management means Tenants stay longer.

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

One of the regular roles I undertake is contacting Landlords when Tenants give notice to leave their rented property. This is of course a worrying time for Landlords as nobody, me included, wants the risk of the property being empty when in by far the majority of cases the sitting Tenant has been settled for some time and we know they are looking after the house and paying the rent. A change of Tenant is always a stressful time for Landlords.

No change please.

So why do something that makes a Tenant think about moving? This was a thought that came to my mind when reading a report by David Salisbury, the Chairman of the National Landlords Association in the lettings section of Property Drum. The point he raised, about Tenants staying longer, along with rising instances of arrears is one that touches on my last Blog about Tenant charges, because some practises by Agents encourage Tenants to move on by making them feel uncomfortable in their role.

Tenant fees.

Practises that make a Tenant review their position cannot always be avoided, such as rent increases, which during our annual review are being looked at more and more as Tenants do stay longer in their homes. That does not mean we should avoid increases, all we can do is be fair which we always advise. But what can be avoided are unnecessary charges and in particular charging for and insisting upon a new agreement every year.

Agent practise and excuse.

You can tell we do not advocate this practise as the reason given, that it gives the Landlord security, actually backfires with the knowledge that more people move as a result of being badly treated (in their eyes yes, but after all it is their decision) We are also aware both locally and Nationally through discussion with other Castle Estates offices that even if Tenants do not move at that time, their perception changes as they see themselves being charged unfairly and then do move as soon as they can.

Consequences.

Now I know from experience that it is far better to have a happy Tenant in your home than an unhappy one. What care used be taken may not be so forthcoming when a Tenant feels aggrieved by the way they are treated and I know this personally as an Agent, Landlord and Tenant. The wider picture is far more serious for Landlords and another reason, when I have been aware of the moves by the CBA and Shelter to have Tenant fees scrapped by Law for the last Ten Years, why we do not charge Tenants additional fees that are not required. There is no doubt that such charges will be central to any campaign to enforce any change of Law.

Arrears.

This is one area where I can both understand the trend and also disagree with it at the same time, for as Agents who use a professional Referencing Agent we know how much more difficult it is to find Tenants who pass without additional requirements (Guarantors, larger deposits) But, to use any other type of referencing such as personal statements (The Magazine I was reading actually had another article on this very same subject on the same page)just does not cut muster and is asking for trouble. So in the long run and probably the reason why we are not finding arrears any more of a problem than usual using a Referencing Agency who have raised their own barrier before they issue a pass seems to be the answer and for us, we will continue to work harder to find the right Tenant understanding why.

04Sep 2012

Property Landlord advice: British Gas laying down the Law!

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

I am not a lover of utility suppliers, mainly because they never seem to know how our Industry works and prove time and again, that they do not have a system that can deal with people moving on a frequent basis. I have seen STWA send out invoices for a few days between Tenants at three times the rate of the normal daily cost, heard staff at British Gas say “let’s turn the fax of today, we have enough paperwork to deal with” and famously (for me) told British Gas, “sorry if I have not pressed the right option, there isn’t one for ‘we do not know what we are doing’ ”

Visit out of the blue.

This time however, they have gone too far! An engineer turned up at a house we manage last week to change the meter because the Tenants were stated as not having paid the Gas Bill. Unbelievably that simple fact was wrong, as the Gas Bill had been paid and was up to date. But that did not stop the BG Employee changing the Tenants on to a pay as you go meter and also whilst at the property looking at the appliances.

Gas Fire turned off.

Mistake number two. Whilst there, without looking at the operation of the fire, he decided the fire was unsafe, disconnected it and labelled it as unfit for use. The Tenant, understandably, phoned us and asked us to explain why? We sent a qualified engineer round, who confirmed, as he had when he carried out the annual Landlords Gas Inspection less than four months earlier, that the fire was perfectly OK and that there was no need what so ever to turn it off.

Not the first time!

What amazed me about this was that our Gas engineer confirmed that this was not the first time he had heard of this and that the meter people employed by British Gas were not even qualified as Gas Engineers. Rather they were trained to carry out a ‘Visual Inspection’ and it seems on that basis only without any qualified reason; the appliance was labelled as dangerous. Rightly, our Gas engineer has sent his invoice to British Gas, as why should the Landlord pay for the mistake?

Liability.               

Now I know from experience that they are not the purveyors of all things good as they like to be perceived (especially from the TV ads) but you have to ask the question, since when have they been given the role of sending unqualified people in too houses to carry out unsolicited inspections? It frankly beggars belief but they must see themselves as the protectors of all things Gas related in Britain’s houses to go about giving their staff this kind of instruction.

Admission.

Now they have apologised for even getting involved in the first place as the Tenants had as stated paid their Gas Bill and the meter will be changed back again. As to whether they will pay for the engineer’s time to confirm all was well? Knowing British Gas I doubt it, but hey, somebody who matters might just read this and agree they should. Feel free to get in touch!

Motivation.

That just leaves us wondering why they should do this in the first place? I am afraid in my opinion I only have one thought as to why and that is to generate income through the repairs that appear without the ability to check correctly, would have been generated from this incident – why else? Forgive me if I am wrong, but why else should British Gas staff be condemning appliances (even though they are unqualified in the first place) during visits they are not even supposed to be making? If we had not known better, the result could well have been a call to a British Gas engineer to repair the fire and the result of that would have been an invoice.

Summary.

By all means call me cynical, but I believe this would probably have been the outcome of a visit to a property lived in by the house owner and the only reason this did not finish in this manner, is because British Gas would not have expected a third party to have knowledge through the Landlords inspection of the appliances and be able to call upon an engineer as we did. In other words it resulted from British Gas NOT understanding how the rental system works, but then I already know that.

Bad practise British Gas, Bad Practise!

18Jul 2012

Tenant Advice: Letting Agents not always responsible.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Over the last couple of weeks, two incidents have occurred where we as Letting Agents have been held responsible for the effects of us doing our job. The situations were different and in both that occurred, having reviewed what we did as a Company we would have to do the same again should similar circumstances occur. But in both cases the responses we received from Tenants whilst being understandable, we felt were unreasonable when you consider we were doing as we were instructed, or in other words, just doing our job.

 Landlord instruction.

The first concerned a Landlord, who we had in the past dealt with on a Tenant find basis, and after moving a Tenant in to the property, had heard nothing more until we received a phone call asking us if we would find a replacement Tenant as the previous Tenant had now left the house. We knew we needed to inspect the house as we were aware that several improvements were planned even after the last tenant, who was fully aware of the situation, had moved in. Having gained permission to enter we found the house in poor condition, with a garden that had not been touched since the winter and a staircase in a dangerous condition because the carpet had been removed leaving many exposed nails.

Tenant reaction.

We sent a communication to the Landlord, stating we were unable to deal with his property as it was unfit (from the point of view of holding viewings) for purpose. He subsequently sent the same e-mail to his Tenant saying this is what we had said about how she had left the property. This was not the case as we had no instruction to comment as we were not managing the house and knowing what had happened before, had actually advised we fully managed the property to enable us to organise the work for him as he lived many miles away but this did not stop the Tenant calling and complaining about our comments, which resulted in a complicated explanation as to what we were commenting on and that any issues from her tenancy were between her and the Landlord, not us.

Reaction.

The Tenant was angry because what we said had been taken out of context and I do not blame her, but asked to report on a property being ready for letting, we would have to say the same again and it was the Landlord who used our e-mail incorrectly, despite having a disclaimer instructing that the content was for the recipient only. Of course this is too small a case to take action against the Landlord, but it has resulted in a breakdown of trust and a Landlord being dis-instructed.

 Insurance issues.

The second problem was bought about because of the need for a house owner to be temporarily re-housed because of recent flooding, again, a situation that is fraught with difficulties and we, knowing the position the Tenants were in, moved heaven and earth to get them re-housed as quickly as possible. But this did not stop the Insurance Company telling the Tenants that both our charges and Deposit requirements were unreasonable. 

Different Trades.

Now far be it for me to comment on current Insurances rates! But I find it a little disingenuous of them NOT to consider what we were doing for their Tenant (i.e. following their wishes) and to place doubt in the Tenants mind, who, up until this time, had no knowledge of what a Letting agent does, why and how. All this did was produce a feeling from people who had already suffered badly enough because of the poor summer weather that they were being taken advantage of when nothing could be further from the truth!

Charges.

To comment fully on Tenant charges is another Blog all together, but we know that what we charge is far from expensive and we are on the lower side of what is charged in our local market place. But frankly, that is not really what was at question. If the Tenant wanted the property we had available and with the knowledge that Insurance Companies have that charges exist when renting through an agent I am somewhat surprised that they do not make allowance and make people aware as part of the service, and of course accept their customers wishes which means they have to accept our terms and conditions, instead to use the words used by the Insurance Company, they considered that ”both the charges AND the deposit (£100 over a full month’s rent) were unreasonable”.

Unavoidable.

Of course none of this will change no matter how many times this happens and of course we have gone through this many times before and will do so again when people need to be re-housed where Insurance is being triggered, but surely Insurance Companies should be the ones to supply a ‘Rental’ fact sheet not the Letting Agent? Of course when Landlords create problems we do have the choice to take the action we did, but the point of this blog is to show that sometimes, no matter what we do as Letting Agents, we will always appear to Tenants to be acting unreasonably!

21Jun 2012

Property Landlord advice: The responsibility for Tenants in rented leasehold property.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is strange how issues worthy of writing about as far as Block Management are concerned have been somewhat thin on the ground and then within the space of two weeks several matters arise which  are worthy of note. This time it is the question of Fire and Health and Safety information in a block of leasehold flats.

The Story.

What happened here is we received a letter from the Fire Brigade, telling us of a call out they had received from a resident at a block that we manage because an alarm was set off over the bank holiday weekend. The problem here was that the letter was accompanied by an invoice for a wrongful call out, effectively billing the site for wasting the Fire Brigade’s time. A fine in effect, which they priced at (and no doubt the courts would uphold) £500.00.

The Impact.

We phoned the Landlord, who self manages the flat (looking after the Tenant themselves) and informed them that their Tenant had failed to read the notice displayed on the ground floor, or that the Landlord when moving somebody in had failed to point out the correct procedure, which clearly stated that when the alarm sounded, the first person to contact was our service providers Chubb Fire. This was the mechanism put in place to ensure the Fire Brigade were not called out as a false alarm.

The Responsibility.

As I have confirmed here, it is not our role to advise sub-let Tenants how the site runs. Their contract is with the Landlord and his agent and that is clearly where the legal duty lies. But this was not the reason given as why the Tenant did not deal with the incident in the manner instructed. Rather because they were Polish they were unable to understand or read clearly the instructions. I will leave aside the course of action any Landlord should take in ensuring their Tenant is well advised although the answer does lie partly in that fact.

The Information.

Several years ago during our first Health and safety check of the site, I had held a heated debate with the Company charged with carrying this inspection out, about the need to have notices in several differing languages, to ensure we were seen to do our best to ensure everybody on the site understood the necessary safety  instruction. My point was that the walls of the corridors were only so big and it would be impossible to supply sufficient translations to cover all possible nationalities and there subsequent language needs.

The Solution.

There is a serious point here, which is that it is impossible to supply a copy for all possible language requirements. Therefore our solution was to offer free translation, which it is not that difficult to do, for all requested languages. This way, whilst the legal responsibility does not lie with us, as stated, the relationship is between the sub Tenant and the Leaseholder, we could be seen to do our best for our Leaseholders and to reinforce what was happening, we wrote confirming this as part of a change to what have been called site rules, which we advised all owners are to be handed over to all subsequent owners. We also confirm this when we are able through requests for information for new owners as purchase questions are raised by the legal profession.

The Outcome.

All of this though definitely confirmed that the current Landlord is wrong in their assumption that the cost was not the responsibility of the Polish Tenant who called the Fire Brigade in the first place because he could not read the instructions correctly, therefore they will remain liable for this cost. The fact that we were accused of failing to supply a translation sits squarely with the Landlord as we had not been asked to supply one. What remains a fact is that It is impossible for us to cover every eventuality, and Landlords should realise that they are the party, as the second signatory to the agreement along with the Tenant, that carries the responsibility for ensuring the Tenant is correctly informed.

28May 2012

Property Landlord advice: Lesson learned when accepting second hand Tenants.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Nowadays, especially with the profusion of property currently available in Staffordshire, it is becoming more popular for some Landlords to consider employing a second Agent to source a Tenant for them.  This is especially the case with Tenant find Landlords as the Tenant is easier processed if there is no Management scenario, which makes swopping between Agents much more difficult. We have just experienced such a scenario for a Managed property and the consequences are not ideal.

The Problem.

The house itself was the problem, not only was it a large four bed roomed detached house, but it sat right on the edge of a natural area of outstanding beauty that justified the expensive valuation. Understandable when the garden is surrounded by deer fencing and the road stops right outside your home! The problem being that property of this value has been as difficult to rent during the spring as it has been to sell! The Landlord spoke about his urgent need to rent and we chose a second Agent between us that we thought would best help his cause.

Control.

In effect when using this method we control and therefore retain Full Management. In this instance the second Agent found the Tenant, this of course does happen, but we take over as soon as the Tenant confirms their interest and we negotiated the referencing procedure through to check in. What confused the issue with this Tenant, was that we were dealing with the parents of the Lady concerned who held the same surname (the same surname we were provided with by the second Agent) they lived out of the area and were not the quickest when going through the procedure.

Procedure.

This meant that the process took about twice as long as it should have done, and after passing referencing, we raised the paperwork in the same way as always, confirming addresses, bank details, asking all relevant questions at the relevant times and carried on booking the check in and clearing payments prior to the date.

The Check in.

Therefore, it was not until the actual check in that we discovered the person renting the property had never even visited the property before until that day and that even the forms were completed by the Tenants parents (Although signed correctly by the Tenant) The problem being, that even though the Referencing forms had been completed indicating no pets, when asked as part of our inventory procedure, the Tenant suddenly announced that they had a small dog!   

The reolution.

In the end, after confirming we would not proceed until clarification from the Landlord, the check in was delayed as we would not proceed and hand over keys without specific approval, the Tenancy commenced one day late and the Landlord ended up with a dog in his house, accepting a larger deposit rather than lose another month at least finding a replacement.

The Lesson.

It is a rule for our office never to accept a Tenant for a property until they have viewed the house concerned, accepting that sometimes, when people are abroad, differing arrangements need to be made. But at these times we do everything we can to avoid problems prior to the check-in. Needless to say, having looked at how this situation arose, we will ensure that we meet any and all Tenants if the same situation arises again if at all possible and there is no doubt this has been a lesson for us as well as a check on our systems.

Timely reminder.

A reminder because we would normally go through such questions when carrying out property viewings which are always carried out accompanied, giving us the chance to ensure we are fully aware of the Tenants circumstances. The problem arose because we assumed the second Agent had already done what we did when assessing the Tenant at the initial viewing and there is the lesson – never assume – you know the old saying, it can make an ASS out of U and ME!

24May 2012

Current Property News: EPC Clarification? – Hardly!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Last week I spoke about the confusion surrounding the introduction of the new legislation surrounding the supply of EPC’s to potential Tenants and how they need to be displayed when advertising properties in both the media and standard window displays. This week we have achieved some clarity through this link to a Q&A paper supplied by the NFPP.

Display documents.

Thankfully, it confirms that window display do not need to have the EPC displayed, which would as a stated, have meant whole scale changes throughout. In fact the clarification does make sense and now every time we give the same property documents as displayed actually out upon request, a copy of the first page of the EPC will be attached. Internet documents have always been clear and a copy needs to be available via a link for every property displayed.

Remaining question.

One area still remains unanswered and this is mainly because the Trading Standards Office (TSO) have as yet failed to contact me to confirm how they view electronic window displays, such as a TV with a scrolling image. As the TSO are the agency charged with enforcing the regulations and the body who will issue fines for non compliance, they will be the body I will seek confirmation from, but hopefully common sense will again prevail and the term ‘window display’ will win over ‘electronic display’ when they confirm an answer as it is the difference between the two definitions that is causing the remaining confusion.

Remaining confusion.

However, one area of the new regulations is still causing confusion and that is whether an EPC in the new format is required even if the existing one is still within its ten year time frame. At present each EPC for a rented property does have a ten year life, but the new regulations ask for certain pieces of information, as displayed on page one of the new style certificates to be included, but this information is not on page one of the old style certificates.

Legal view.

 The legal view is that to comply with the legislation, a new certificate has to be supplied, otherwise how can we provide the information as needed on page one of the new style certificates. Bearing in mind the regulations actually confirms the data as listed on page 1 of the new certificates.

Industry view.

Surprisingly, the view of the industry (at least locally) is that a new certificate is NOT required, and that the old style, even though it does not include the data referred to on page 1, is sufficient. Surprisingly because one would assume they would take the line of least resistance and of course, increased revenue!

Still waiting.

Having now been waiting for over a week for TSO to phone me back, had a row with my legal advisor because he cannot see the commercial sense with which I will be putting my Company at a disadvantage if I only took his view locally and had to insist that my current EPC provider asks again specifically about the issue of providing the data as specified when he has already responded to my question, means I am winning no friends in trying to resolve the issue, but as it is my Company that would be fined if we get it wrong, I must be persistent. But the worst comment that has come out of this shambles and I firmly believe that it is a shambles, is that there is no definitive answer, and only the courts could provide one! Perhaps I should just ignore the law then unless my Company is successfully prosecuted? It just makes further nonsense all round!

18May 2012

Property Landlord advice: Annual Rent Increases show current market trends.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I recently wrote that a scheme being tried by a local Council in Staffordshire to encourage house sales was an excellent idea and one that if it worked be copied in other areas. At the time I wrote it I was aware that it may be difficult for some to understand why a Letting Agent should be happy to see house sales moving again when so many houses are entering the rental market purely because they cannot sell in this market?

Perfect answer!

Well one of our regular routine annual procedures has provided an answer as to why in a way far better than anything I could find to articulate my thoughts at the time of writing about the Council. The procedure is the annual rent review, which, because Landlords are able to increase rent once per year, we undertake in the spring because it is the most natural time for prices to increase in what is normally the time when the market shows its best increase through increased activity.

Hard task.

We do of course discuss each scenario with our Landlords so that they are both aware and happy with any proposed increase and I must confirm that it is good to see so many Landlords this year being realistic about both the market and the current Tenants capacity to pay any increase. But each eligible property has had to be reviewed carefully. As a rule, we would normally only recommend an increase that kept the rent below the current market price, an approach which rarely meets with anything but approval from our Landlords, but the numbers of available properties at present as meant that we need to have a very good picture of those very rates!

Large increase in numbers.

It is a fact that the number of properties coming to the market is still high and Tenants do have plenty of selection when looking for a home and are on average looking at far more properties than they would normally do (possibly twice as many if our viewing diary is anything to go by!) but this has of course had an effect on the achievable prices as more and more offers are made as Tenants try to catch a bargain. Of course we manage them in a way that reflects what we expect to happen so we are very aware of what rent we are liable to achieve still for our Landlords!

Less houses in this case will be better!

And this is the evidence that confirms my view of any scheme which encourages more movement in the housing market. There is also no doubt that we are seeing as many if not more Tenants as we would expect at this time of year, the problem for so many Landlords is that there are at least twice as many houses if not more on the market. It is easy therefore to see that should houses start to sell again; the rental market will also improve as what we consider normality would be resumed.

Competition will stay.

Estate Agents do of course still have and will continue to have the ability to speak to any owner of a property that is failing to be sold and will no doubt offer the rental option before the Traditional Letting Agent even gets the opportunity to speak to owners. So be it, it is a situation we have lived with for the last three years and we are still getting more than our share of the properties available.

Market share.

But what tells us this will not change even if house sales do make a dramatic recovery this year, is that the Private Rental market now accounts for over 20% of UK housing stock at current rising trends. (Figures will be confirmed next year) so we as Agents will learn to live with the increased competition, but I still see increasing sales as a good thing for Landlords and hopefully by the time we carry out our rent review next year, the new figure will be easier to calculate!

11May 2012

Current Property News: Castle Blog 2 Year Anniversary.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 

It may not be news to some, but to me the two year anniversary of my Blog page (This is the 200th Post) marks the changes that both the industry and my Company have gone through during this time. It started as a way of promoting the name of the group at a time when I was both a Franchise holder and Franchisee of the Castle Estates Group. The Anniversary marks a time when the Franchise group has ceased trading and my own Franchise has become an independent Letting Agency, as have all of the National Castle Offices across the country.

 

Changes in trade.

 

On the face of it, such a statement of fact may seem to be a statement of failure, as the group no longer offers Franchising at all. But rather it is a statement about the industry itself, which no longer in my humble opinion suits the Franchising model, in the same way that Estate Agency never has either. The reason is simple, because of the housing sales collapse, nearly every Estate Agents in town has added lettings to their business model and one can hardly blame them, as there is no doubt this saved many Companies from closing during the last three years.

 

Changes in Law.

 

This period has also seen many changes in law as Governments continue to try to put their control on a sector which they obviously felt was not giving Tenants a fair deal. Regular readers will know that I look on our industry as two sectors, the non professional and the professional. Legislation has enveloped all. The only pity is that our professional bodies were not strong enough to convince the Government that they could self Police and until legislation enforces all Agencies to join a professional body this will not change.

 

Changes in rules of the game.

 

Not all legislation has been to do with how the industry treats its clients however and of course there have been many changes involving procedure, which ultimately DO effect how clients are treated, but are more to do with how we carry out our business than the principals used in doing so. Most of these changes have only just taken effect through the Localism Act, such as new regulations surrounding Tenants Deposit and the manner in which the Energy Performance Certificate is dealt with. No doubt we will continue to see more, although without being Political, it tends to be the socialists that encourage control of our every move rather than the current incumbents.

 

Trading as a Letting Agent.

 

So back to the day job! Well that has been the result of the major change during the time this blog has been running and in fact I am pleased to state that this Blog has been one of the more consistent factors in my daily work. It is a task I both enjoy and feel offers a real service to our client base, both Landlord and Tenant. Certain posts now find themselves repeated in our local papers so the presence of the Blog has more to do with the day to day running of an agency now without the National link. This is a fact that is confirmed in its content matter as more local issues are discussed than National on a weekly basis.

 

 Next two years.

 

Well I hope for more of the same. There is certainly never a shortage of topics as everything surrounding the Industry is discussed on a weekly basis. From viewings to agreements, buying property and preparation for the market, Informing both Tenants and Landlords, discussing professionalism and how to deal with problems, we have covered it all and hopefully will continue to do the same, no matter what changes are introduced.

 

01May 2012

Block Management Advise: Sub Letting can lead to problems.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 

As an agent who act as both a Letting Agent and a Block Management Agent, we are in a fortunate position especially when renting property on sites that we manage as well, of being both aware and able to ensure that the rules of the site in question are adhered to in our Tenancy rental agreements. This was highlighted last week when a Tenant that we had turned down for a property because we knew pets were not allowed, was moved in to the same site through a different Agent, but still with pet dog at heel!

Clarification.

 

Let me first of all clarify the situation regarding the owners of Leasehold property. In law, they are Tenants of the property but on a lease which normally lasts in the region of 90 plus years. Therefore, when they let a property, they are in effect sub-letting to a second Tenant on a short term lease, usually an assured shorthold agreement. The important part of this clarification is that the Leaseholder has an agreement, the Lease, which he must abide by. This Lease will confirm what is allowed and what is not allowed to happen on site through covenants included within the lease, from the basic permission for the Leaseholder to sub-let, to such items as the use of the Car Park, balconies, use of common areas and of course the all important item for this Blog, permission for pets to be kept on site or not as the case may be!

 

The rights of the Tenant.

 

What is important for the Leaseholder is the need for such covenants that impact on the second Tenant to be included in the shorthold agreement, so that they can be enforced. Fail to state in an agreement that all covenants included in the site lease apply and such covenants cannot be enforced. I have had situations before where a second Tenant stored a caravan on the car park, which was against the lease and as Block Managing Agent it was our role to enforce the covenant. Fortunately the Tenant was very understanding as they wanted to stay long term and found alternative storage for the caravan. If they had not, the guilty party would have been the Leaseholder, as it is their responsibility to ensure, if allowed to sub let, that the terms of the Lease are upheld.

 

Back to the Dog.

 

So now we are faced with a situation where a potential Tenant had been turned away from the site because they had a pet. Correct on our part, we manage the site, we are aware of the covenant. The person concerned, because he wanted to live on this particular site, followed up another flat available through a different agent and because they said nothing, has moved in to the flat with dog ensconced. Now it is our duty to inform the Leaseholder that they have moved a pet in too a flat against the lease and that they must enforce the provisions of the covenant and remove the pet.

 

Implications.

 

Of course, providing the agreement is the normal six month Assured Shorthold agreement, then notice can be given and the matter dealt with sooner rather than later, although the reaction of the Tenant may not be as understanding as we achieved with the Caravan. I cannot foresee him finding somebody else to look after the animal having engineered a situation where he achieved his initial objective.  For the Landlord, somewhere along the line, the potential of greater costs and or loss of rent will be significant. If I were him, then a discussion with the agent would be forthcoming, again, sooner rather than later.

 

Conclusion.

 

What should always happen on any leasehold site is the lease should be checked, or at least the question asked of the Landlord, what are the restrictive covenants for the site concerned? For the Tenant in such situations, whether carried out with knowledge or not (although some would say in this case the action as carried out with full knowledge that pets were not allowed because we had already informed him) there is the question of compensation for at least moving costs and / or the cost of dealing with whatever the implications are of complying with unknown covenants at the time of signing the secondary lease.  These could of course be significant depending upon the situation, but the bottom line is that as Leaseholder the fault lies with allowing the situation to develop without sufficient safeguards in place. The question that has to be asked is why was the Tenant moved in without the Agent giving the Landlord best advice? Probably a question the agent may find difficult to answer!