Tag Archives: Professional Management

03Jun 2013

Landlord advice: Inventory Company promotes a lack of professionalism in Agents.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Inventory

I have just read an article in one of the Industry magazines as part of my Monday ‘what is happening’ hour and frankly could not believe my eyes. It is in a section called Outsourcing in Mays issue of The Negotiator, so falls half way between an advert and an article, but is based upon the words of two gentlemen from the industry, one being an Agent and one being a facility provider for the industry and it is clear that one has an invested interest in selling his services, but I just find it hard to believe that an Agent would place in writing what has been repeated in the article!

 Matter of opinion.

 Let me say from the off here, that what I am stating is my opinion or ‘take’ on the subject, so some of what I comment on I do so agreeing that it is a matter of opinion, but I would never admit in writing that as a Company we could not offer our Landlords such an important part of the service needed in Managing property on their behalf. Because the representative of the Agents involved is openly stating that they are unable to provide professional quality inventories for the Landlords they serve!

 Inventories are us!

 Firstly, the skill set needed to be able to supply top class inventories can be learnt by one man as well as the next, so I cannot agree that Letting Agents cannot carry out the task on their Landlords behalf. All they need to do is learn how! But secondly and again in my opinion more importantly, how can any agent pass on such a vastly important part of the job to somebody else?

 Legal responsibility.

  Far more importantly for me is the legal responsibility we have with our Landlords under the contract all Agents should supply their Landlords. Good inventories are such an important part of the service now that to charge for a job and only do half of it in my opinion cannot be called ‘Full Management’ services.

 Argument against.

The reasons given for encouraging outsourcing inventories, is that Agents are too close to the position and risk Tenants stating the inventory is one sided. Well if what we claim for is correct, then where is the problem? Done correctly, Tenants have as much input as we do in the document and as we are contractually bound to work for the Landlord then that is what we do. They go on to say that there is then an inherent risk that the Agents inventory could fail in any claim because it was raised by the Landlords Agent. Well in our experience, that is just wrong!

 Facts speak louder than words.

The facts are that after three years with our current system, where disputes are dealt with by independent arbitrators, as a Company after ensuring we have Landlord agreement we have won every case that has gone through arbitration. So our experience would suggest exactly the opposite than what is claimed in this article. So the facts support that Agents should know what to do and how. I would also suggest, that a third party inventory, has far more chance of having their claim challenged by a Tenant who can easily prove that they were not involved during the Tenancy and are therefore not aware of matters which could have a far greater bearing on the outcome of any claim.

 Summary.

 Sub contracting major parts of the role of Property Management is not and never should be the way forward and our industry is not alone in being able to challenge the principal. The inventory is such an integral part of being able to offer the services of Property Management to Landlords that I would challenge any Companies ability to call themselves’ Letting Agents if they openly state they are unable to fulfil the role themselves. What else? Rent Collection? Property Visits? The agreement?  Better to be able to say yes, we do that!

29May 2013

Transparency of Agency Fees Discussed

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Craig Smith

3 Agents Fees 290513

The big talking point in the lettings industry at the moment is something I wrote about just a short while ago. Due to the increase in the amount of rental properties at the moment, there seems to be a lot of ‘have a go’ agents popping up. As there is no compulsory regulatory body for letting agents, there are more and more stories of rogue agents leaving their clients out of pocket.

Hidden Extras

There are tales of agents disappearing and their clients having no clue about where their money is. But the other big concern is agents who don’t show a transparent fee structure to their clients which results in a lot of hidden costs.

Naturally, you would expect to pay a higher cost if a higher amount of work is needed. For example, you can buy yourself a pizza but if you want extra toppings you would be charged extra. The same principle applies to lettings, a Landlord taking a tenant find only service would pay extra for additional services such as an inventory. Although charging for additional services is fine some agents will hide the charges from clients in order to try and gain extra business.

I would just like to point out at this stage that Castle Estates have never hidden any fees. Tenants are asked to sign a terms & conditions leaflet before applying for any property which contain a set of possible fees, not just for the application but for almost every eventuality throughout the tenancy. Likewise, our agreements with Landlords contain a list of any fees that may be necessary throughout the tenancy.

Lack of Experience

The problem isn’t just with the rogues of the business out to make an early retirement, it is also down to the amount of agents who aren’t properly trained or have the support they need to know exactly what they need to do. Running an agency isn’t about sitting back and waiting for the money to come in, far from it! There is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes that not everybody knows about to make sure a tenancy is properly managed & above board.

The BBC have likened the letting industry to the wild west which isn’t entirely true. Yes, there are some bad guys out there but for each one I bet there are 10 times more good agents. But without a compulsory regulatory body, there is often little or no comeback for those who have been affected by the bad guys.

Avoid the Sting

There are ways that Landlords and tenants can avoid being left out of pocket. You should always look for the agents who do belong to a professional body. Although it doesn’t guarantee a perfect service, it does mean there are better routes to go down in the event of a complaint.

21May 2013

Current Property News: Queen’s speech skims the surface, but reactions dig deep!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

r_seaman@hotmail.com

 

Many have commented on the Queens speech and it will come as no surprise that it is the element included in the forthcoming immigration bill that I now make the subject of my latest Blog.

Content.

Much has been said about the lack of detail contained within the speech and most will see this as a hastily included promise, aimed mainly at the ears of those who chose to support UKIP at the recent local elections. I believe they would probably be correct to do so! I do not wish to comment on the political rights or wrongs of this situation, but there is no doubt the clamour to make political gain from the lack of detail have themselves repeated the same lack of detail in what they have written.

A R L A

Rather, what detail is known, confirms that anybody writing without including how the current checking systems work in our Industry are showing themselves to be short on knowledge and it would appear, purely intent on causing embarrassment to the Government or making some kind of gain themselves. The best report and summary of where we actually are with what has been suggested against how the Industry deals with references now, comes from A R L A who have summarised very simply the reality of what is being suggested.

In the know!

What happens within the vast majority of Agencies in the UK is that professional referencing is carried out by professional referencing agencies, which include taking the potential Tenants National Security Number which assists in confirming identity and employment records. In effect, we are already able to confirm very easily the status of all applicants, meaning the check is already being carried out and is therefore available for any Landlord who wishes to avail themselves of the services most Letting Agents offer.

In the know but not known!

It is the Landlords who take advantage of the system to accept Tenants without ensuring such checks are carried out that are being addressed by this potential legislation. This point is missed by nearly all reports as the writers pursue their own cause through print. It is therefore hardly a blind leap, to see just how easy it would be too introduce the same tests carried out for others, to the few who have created the apparent need for action to be taken.

Sensible reaction.

Mine is a small point but relevant none the less and I just hope that the promise not to introduce yet another hurdle for the vast majority of honest good Landlords to jump, is upheld, especially when all Landlords who utilise our system for example are in effect already complying. Now for those who read my ramblings regularly, I am reaching for the cupboard and reaching for the drum!

Professional.

What I do not agree with, is yet again it seems the clear and once and for all legislation required to turn the industry into a professional service is being sidestepped. Whether it is via licensed Agents or registered Landlords, the solution lies with the Government that has the strength to research and legislate in an organised and industry sponsored manner. Every professional body would work alongside a Government to produce what would deal with all of these side issues in one step and give the public the comfort and trust all professional Agents and Landlords justifiably feel they already deserve.

 

14Nov 2012

Prescribed Information confirmed as having Greater Importance

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

In July 2011 the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Suurpere v Nice and Nice that inadequate Prescribed Information as required under the Tenancy Deposit Regulations as set out in the Housing Act 2004 and above all in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007 had been issued to the tenant.

In this latest case the Court of Appeal on 6th November 2012 has reached a similar decision and overturned an earlier and incorrect lower court decision. The full details of this decision are awaited but the simple facts are that the tenant had paid a deposit and the Landlord had protected it in one of the approved schemes but he had not given the prescribed information (PI) as required by the Prescribed Information Order 2007. In the Suurpere case there was an agent involved who paid the fine but in this case there was no agent.

The tenant had significant arrears so the Landlord issued proceedings and as is so often the case and where the big danger lies for landlords the tenant counter-claimed that the requirements of the Prescribed Information Order had not been complied with. At the initial hearing the Landlord admitted this ‘offence’ but in defence claimed it didn’t matter as the tenant could easily find the information for themselves. This was exactly the decision in Suurpere – that the tenant should be given the information not have to go searching for it as and when they needed it.

This opinion was strongly emphasised in Suurpere which makes it all the more astonishing that the lower court Judge was persuaded by this argument. That in effect it is the protection of the deposit that matters in TDP cases and that the issuing of the PI is no more than an administrative procedural necessity. So the Landlord claimed the deposit had been protected (which it had) and that the tenant could have gone to the scheme administrator for anything else he wanted to know. The lower Court dismissed the tenant’s claim stating information in the tenancy agreement (scheme details) plus other information the Landlord provided during the Court hearing was enough to comply with the requirements of the Order.

Not surprisingly given such an obvious error at law the tenant appealed and equally unsurprisingly the more learned Court of Appeal disagreed completely with the Landlord and original Judge. It held quite clearly that the giving of the PI amounts to more than just a minor procedural obligation and that the information has  real importance in advising tenants how to get their deposit back and also how they could go to a dispute at no cost to themselves and without the need for litigation on their part.

In effect the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court in Suurpere v Nice (see Nearly Legal report here). The lower Court had not reached a proper judicial evaluation. The Landlord clearly was in breach of the Prescribed Information Order and so the penalties in section 214 The Housing Act 2004 applied. Therefore the Landlord was ordered to return the deposit plus, because the original offence had occurred before The Localism Act 2011 provisions came into effect in April 2012 the mandatory penalty of three times the deposit applied

So the tenant won and his appeal was allowed. Significantly the Court of Appeal has now agreed with the High Court decision in Suurpere that the Prescribed Information a Landlord must serve on the tenant is not some administrative afterthought which simply acts as an accompaniment to deposit protection. It is instead a vital component and one of two parts in the deposit protection process both of which must be fully and correctly completed by the Landlord to discharge his obligations in respect of deposit protection.

Simply to protect the deposit, laudable though that is compared to not protecting it, is insufficient to discharge the obligations. But more importantly this latest binding decision from a Court of Record confirms as was held in Suurpere that Landlords must supply that information themselves and not leave tenants to go searching for it themselves. As in Suurpere simply providing the DPS website address is not enough – the Scheme Terms and Conditions must be printed and attached to the Prescribed Information notice being served.

For the other two schemes there is a leaflet which under their rules it is obligatory to issue. Post Localism Act 2011 if not doing so before landlords and agents should definitely obtain a signed copy of a suitably endorsed PI form as proof that the tenant has indeed received all the information.

All this means that if there was any shred of doubt post Suurpere there is now none whatsoever that the need to comply with the Prescribed Information Order is just as important as the need to place the deposit in the DPS Custodial scheme or insure it through The Dispute Service or my|deposits schemes. The two decisions mean tenants can easily defend a landlord’s section 21 action if they can show the deposit has not been protected OR that the Prescribed Information now have clear means of defending possession actions based on s21 Housing Act 1988 actions or in rent arrears cases. If either has not been completely and correctly completed by the Landlord and if he is unable to prove that if challenged then any s21 notice he has served will fail and in any section 8 action the tenant can counterclaim.

Informed opinion was that this appeal would always fail and that the Lower Court was clearly in error by in effect saying the PI didn’t really matter and if the tenant wanted more information he knew where to find it. But the Landlord was foolish to appeal as the July 2011 Appeal Court decision in Suurpere virtually guaranteed this appeal by the tenant would succeed. So now the Landlord hands over the deposit, plus a x3 penalty and presumably has significant costs.

While agents and Landlords may be irritated by this decision it is the only correct one that could be arrived at, as in Suurpere. Given the detail in the Statute and above all the Prescribed Information Order (2007) it is clear that no matter what Landlords may believe the Prescribed Information always had great significance given the detailed way the information that must be served on the tenant is laid out in the PI Order.

08Nov 2012

Current Property News: Tenant must be advised correctly or Landlords will pay.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that Landlords not only need to register Tenants deposit under the Tenants Deposit Protection legislation, but that they must provide Tenants with the Prescribed Information in connection with the scheme the money is protected with, or the courts now have a clear case confirming exactly what will happen should they fail.

Old News

Back in February this year, I confirmed the changes introduced by the Localism Act 2011 which was introduced in April this year. The changes surround not only when protection needed to be registered by, but also what was delivered to the Tenant in how we register deposits.

PI

The Prescribed Information is what was under review in this case, after a Landlord had failed to supply the data to the Tenant even though the deposit was protected. In fact in the original court decision, he thought the courts agreed with his stance, that the purpose of the legislation was to protect the money and that had been achieved. The Tenant on appeal, has won on the basis that protection MUST be accompanied by the information surrounding the Tenants rights and how to act to protect his money.

Fine.

The penalty is both full refund of the initial deposit and a fine to the value of three times this same amount. This is of course significant and places before anybody who felt otherwise, that the need to protect deposits is only half of the intended actions required under the act. But it is not just when the deposit is initially received that action needs to be taken.

End of fixed term.

Under the Localism Act, it also became clear that in clarifying how the legislation should work, new documents need to be given with every new Tenancy. This means, when a Tenancy ends its initial fixed term, new information needs to be given. The fine for failing to do so, is as was awarded in this case, three times the deposit.

Solution.

There is only one! Do things the right way to start with, understand the requirements and put in place a system that ensures all Tenants receive the data at the start of the Tenancy, as well as with any new agreement signed. This alone should be easy, if a Tenant is signing an agreement, hand out the scheme rules surrounding the deposit. If you then add a system that does the same when an agreement becomes periodic (Treated as a new agreement in the Localism Act) and ensures Tenants get the updated information at this time, you will be covered. But always, if in doubt? Ask!

02Nov 2012

Current Property News: Free Carbon Monoxide Detectors!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Two items of news from the last week have caught our attention at Castle Estates in Stafford and that is news surrounding Carbon Monoxide Detectors. The first was the change is the Landlords Gas Safety Certificate to include inspection of flues running through voids and now it has been made compulsory in Northern Ireland for all new homes.

Swift progress.

Both of these moves are positive forces in the battle against this silent killer and whilst the change to include hidden flues within the Gas Safety Inspection is going to cause many problems before the end of the first year whilst the changes take effect (Many, in blocks of flats, will require access through areas which do not belong to the premises in question) the change in Northern Ireland is a move to have them as standard practise in all properties whether rented or owner occupied.

Balance in favour of rented property.

For many years as a Letting Agent I have known just how Tenants are better protected than owner occupiers, who would normally never dream of having a Gas Safety Inspection. Because I did think it a good idea, I found a Gas fire in a house I purchased was not vented at all when fitted, indeed the chimney breast was open and allowed fumes to pass directly in to the main bedroom through fitted drawers. I could have gone to bed and never woken up if we had not found the problem.

Good progress.

But the other point about Carbon Monoxide Detectors is that they are such a good idea! Because of this, as an Agent who likes to ensure we do things the right way, we are going to issue a free Carbon Monoxide detector for every new Landlord and change of Tenant.

Correct usage.

Of course one important matter is to ensure they are fitted and used. We have decided to provide one that is portable and allows the Tenant to have it in the lounge when the fire is on and then taken to the bedroom when they turn in for the night. This way we will be able to ensure that they are working from day one. The only maintenance being the replacement of the battery!

Law of the Land.

What must be remembered is the change in law came about because of a death and any move to reduce the risk has to be a good one. This is why we and our Plumbers believe it will not be long before it becomes Law for all properties. By providing them free of charge, we will remain ahead of the game and ensure this is one more area where are doing the best possible for our Landlords.

30Oct 2012

Current Property News: CAB Failing to understand Tenants Deposit Scheme.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

“The problem is they just do not realise that there are decent honest Landlords and Agents out there!” So said a fellow Letting Agent who just happened to be in my office this morning, when speaking about the Citizens Advice Bureau and the problems she had found in dealing with them. So it seems a regular problem is happening for other Agents, which does nothing to resolve the issue, but does make you realise that CAB are not perhaps the all knowing all seeing force that they convey, when demanding changes in the way we run our Industry.

Regular item.

In fact, it was only last week that I referred to their campaign to remove all Tenants fees, and support for a new five year agreement, but how can they be taken seriously as a champion of the Tenant when (taking our evidence from two conversations with them this morning) it is clear they do not even understand how, for example, the Tenants Deposit Scheme works!

Phone calls.

What happened this morning was an initial call from a Lady at the CAB asking why we were not returning a Tenants deposit (The Tenant having been at the house for many years) What she was not aware of was that the Deposit was not being refunded because of cigarette burns, yellowing paintwork caused by smoking, general untidiness and cleaning requirements. This in a house where the Tenant had been warned about the consequences when we carried out our Property visits of smoking inside.

Not aware.

The problem lay with the Lady not being aware of how the DPS (Our preferred Deposit organisation) works. So we had to advise them of what would happen and how the claim would go to adjudication as both parties could not agree. The Tenant stance was one of ‘but I have always paid my rent’ which of course was not acceptable.

Problem compounded!

Lo and behold, not an hour later, a second person from the CAB phoned and asked for the Tenants DPS reference number. Now for those who do not know, DPS will only give the Tenants reference number to the Tenant, but we would expect CAB to be aware of this at least, as it is such a basic rule of the system. Instead, we had to explain again how the system worked and be spoken to as if we were being obstructive in how we were dealing with the matter. This is unacceptable and speaks volumes about the manner in which CAB view Landlords and Agents.

Who knew!

The fact is, as a professional Agency, we pride ourselves on carrying out our affairs to the letter of the Law. The fact seems to be that our Tenant, who we had of course already the procedure explained to him, could not find anybody with the knowledge at the CAB to advice him well at all. The phone calls of course ended up, providing they were relayed correctly, with the same advice we had already passed on, but while I am of course aware that the CAB do a very good job in advising the public, it seems they need some training on what is now a basic staple of Tenant law, because what should have happened when the Tenant reported his situation in the first place to the CAB was an answer of, ‘Yes, that’s right!’

Review.

As a matter of course, we review every situation where we are in communication with organisations who act for others, whether it is another Agent, Solicitor or organisations such as the CAB. In doing so in this case we were satisfied we did our job correctly. The only question was one of language and translation, but as I have stated, the Tenant was long standing and we had held many conversation with him over the years and we are left in do doubt that the problem was not one of miscomprehension, rather a Tenant who did not get what he wanted, feeling he could get help from others. It is a pity we were spoken to by the CAB in such a poor way when what we did was correct and I just hope that in relaying the conversation our Tenant was advised that we are correct in our dealings on his behalf!

26Oct 2012

Property Landlord advice: Shelter idea not practical, Tenants need their own control.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I posted a Blog a couple of weeks ago about what encourages a Tenant to stay longer in property and the answer both backed by the facts about the length of time our Tenants stay and what the Castle Estates group confirm, is the need for them to have confidence in their position. This involves allowing them to have control of their agreement by NOT being tied down to a new agreement every year.

Reasoning.

It is worth repeating quickly what this means. Tenant’s who are asked to sign a new agreement every year, are by doing so actually being asked a simple question – Do I want to be tied down for another year? In effect, they have their flexibility taken away from them. Instead what we believe in is allowing the contract to role on month by month (Periodic) and handing the control (when they wish to give notice) over to the Tenant. The actual reality is that Tenants stay longer when they do not feel pressured.

Shelter proposal.

Shelter feel that the market needs a five year agreement and I agree with William Jordan of Jordans Rentals (in his piece in Property Drum) that Shelter are approaching the issue from the wrong point. I do not know many Tenants who would agree to sign a five year agreement; in fact I would never recommend advertising a property as available on a five year agreement as it would greatly reduce the interest. What Shelter has missed is that it is not security people wish for, it is flexibility!

Moving on.

It is because Tenants want to be able to move when it suits them, not the opposite and as for Landlords giving Tenants notice to sell the house etc, well it is my experience that this happens very infrequently. Rather, it is when a Tenant gives notice in by far the majority of cases that a Landlord may make a decision to remove the property from the market. Also, it cannot be forgotten that we act for Landlords as their agent and this is a legal fact that cannot be ignored. But if a Tenant wanted a five year agreement and the Landlord was happy, this can already be arranged by using agreements available now, so why change?

Fees.

But there is another area which I alluded to in my original post which also needs to be addressed and this is where Shelter has a point. Too many Agents use the new agreement stance as an income stream by charging the Tenant for every new agreement signed. This has three real time implications. Firstly, they are taking advantage of the Tenant and reducing their upfront Landlord fees. OK for Landlords, but, Secondly, this gives credence to the Campaign waged by both Shelter and CAB to remove all Tenant fees (as, may I remind everybody, is already the case in Scotland) and long term will not do Landlords any favours, just to take short term advantage of Tenants.

Landlords pay costs.

Thirdly, by allowing Tenants to stay under a periodic agreement resulting in Tenants staying longer in the house, in reality, if (and when) a Tenant leaves because of being asked to sign a contract extension, it is the Landlord who is put at risk in having an empty property between Tenancies and losing out on rent, even if this is only for two weeks between Tenants!

Conclusion.

These are the reasons I put to why Shelter are approaching the matter from the wrong end, systems develop and patterns emerge because of the way the market takes them – market forces at work. That some see an opportunity to take advantage is, in my humble opinion, what needs to be dealt with here. Agents can be accommodating and property is available already long term and we are of course asked the question at times, but in reality, flexibility is the answer, not longer agreements.

There is more to follow on this subject and I will be adding to and commenting on what is currently a very live debate very soon!

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!

18Oct 2012

Tenant advice: Access required for a reason.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It seems some people just do not trust anybody when it comes to access to their homes and of course we both respect and understand that. Advising Tenants before we enter a property for whatever reason should always be done with permission and we fully endorse this golden rule. But sometimes we need access to enable us to do our job at differing times and when it comes to the end of the Tenancy it seems we run up against a brick wall more times than any other during a Tenancy.

Problems and mistakes.

Like any busy office, with property visits, viewings and maintenance issues to address on a daily basis, mistakes do sometimes occur.  This means a review of why and apologies to the person concerned, especially as it can sometimes be a misunderstanding. Other times, with Tenants who do not speak English well, we have to abort if we feel our requirements have not been fully understood if nobody is present when we call, or sometimes we can be wrong and only after a visit we thought was understood, find out it was not and again apologise. One thing for sure, we never enter a property without belief that we have received permission!

Access denied!

However, what we do find difficult is when Tenants that are approaching the end of their Tenancy deny us access at all times! There can be several reasons, problems during the Tenancy, having been given notice when they did not wish to leave, or of course just plain mistrust. It has to be said, no matter how hard you try, it is impossible to develop good relationships with every Tenant. The whole scenario surrounding the renting of property throws up a myriad of problems, some of which create problems Tenants do not appreciate no matter that we are doing our job. Relationships therefore can be strained.

Job requirements.

Of course at the end of one Tenancy we need to re-let the property for the next, which means viewings. There is also the need to review properties and look at any works required between tenants. Of course it is perfectly acceptable for property to be improved between Tenants which is sensibly the most practical time for improvements to be carried out. To be denied access for both is effectively stopping us from doing our job, and is exactly the reason why specific arrangements are included within the Tenancy agreement to ensure arrangements are clearly set out for all to understand.

Time limit.

Of course we must try to resolve all issues quickly and with agreement. We have been asked to wait two weeks before viewings start and will comply, because at least we have access for the last two weeks instead of none at all, but when we are denied all together, we then have (usually) an irate Landlord who wants to know why we cannot progress his property and along with that, we usually get the question who is going to pay for the two weeks lost rent? A good question which the law does not allow us to answer!

Conclusion.

The conclusion therefore is to try to get along with our Tenants which we do try to do as a matter of course. But not just to gain co-operation, but because all things end better if they start with a smile! (Must try to remember that one!) But it is important that Tenants understand just how important it is for us to do our job once notice has been served, remembering that we will arrange visits and viewings to coincide with when somebody is present at the property and always respect their position by giving a clear 48 hrs notice, so to the vast majority who understand – Thankyou!