Tag Archives: Professional Management

By Steve Roulstone

We just as other Letting Agents must also be finding, have Landlords who are wishing to keep costs down to a minimum in these difficult times when we are all finding pressure on our margins. However, there are some areas that just do not justify cutting corners and the Inventory is one such area.

Deposit disputes in Landlords favour.

There have now been many cases of claims against Tenant deposits that have been successful, purely because of both a well written inventory and sufficient photographic evidence to back up our claim. The Tenants Deposit dispute system itself, after just one year in operation, warned Landlords that the biggest reason they were losing claims was because of an insufficient inventory.

Why?

Explained in the simplest terms, if you wish to claim against a Tenant for painting a wall black during a Tenancy without permission, if you cannot confirm that it was not black at the beginning of the Tenancy, you will lose. Similarly, if you wish to claim decoration allowed was done badly, you would also lose unless you could prove that the decoration at the start of a Tenancy was in good order. We have posted before about the importance and it is explained well in this Blog by Craig Smith

Photographic proof.

Of course photos play a massive part in this, as a house correctly recorded can easily be shown in its original condition, but that does not mean a well written version should not accompany photographs. If a written inventory confirms no stains on a carpet and there are no specific photographs close enough to confirm general level of dirt, this as well as photos confirming the current state and condition should (and have) proven to be sufficient. But of course, if you have both, then no problem should exist.

Cookers and sinks.

Cookers and sinks are the two items that cause most issues, and with experience, we know to ensure they are well photographed at the start and the end of Tenancy. (Only just in front of Gardens where the same rules apply) We have had occasions where even faced with the before and after photographs, Tenants have insisted on allowing the arbitration service to decide, but whilst this is their right and nowadays more common, we have always achieved the correct result on behalf of our Landlords.

Do not cut corners.

All of this explains why we encourage Landlords to have our Inventory as part of their Tenant check in. Of course Fully Managed properties always receive this service, so my comments are better aimed at Landlords who have either always, or in an attempt to cut costs have now decided to manage their property themselves. In the long run this will pay for itself.

Always at the house.

 It is also one of the main reasons why when checking tenants in to their new home, it should always happen at the house itself. Too many times lately we hear of Tenant’s being checked in at the Agents office. I would ask the question how an inventory can be relied upon if you do not go through it with the Tenant at the property.  If at the end of the Tenancy your Tenant objects to charges, it would be very easy for them to state the inventory was never checked in their presence. A risk I would not wish to take on behalf of my Landlords!

By Steve Roulstone

A report from Shelter (as reported on the BBC news pages today) states that complaints about Landlords have risen by 27% over the last three years. As always there are statistics and statistics and the ones quoted in this report are a little ambiguous, but let’s take them at face value and assume they mean exactly what they say and assume we are measuring one year against another and that the 27% figure applies from 2008/09 to 2011/12.

More houses bigger numbers.

So let’s look at what has happened at face value, because some of this increase is purely down to trends. For a start, there are some 5% more houses in the private rental sector than there were four years ago and of course nowadays, people do choose the easy route and register a complaint with the authorities prior to actually reporting the issue to the Landlord. This must apply to at least 10% of the figure quoted.

No excuse.

But do not get me wrong, as a Letting Agent I am not making excuses for these figures, far from it, just wanting to put a little bit more reality to the situation. At our office for example, we have only ever had two instances of problems being reported to the Council and on both occasions we were not spoken to first. Problems can occur without the Landlord or Agents knowledge and unless we are informed we are powerless. In the two instances we have been involved with a Council inspection, only one resulted in work being needed and that is work that would have been completed should we have been made aware first!

Flooding in!

In the report for instance specific mention is made of damp houses. This year this is not a surprise as I can verify as a Tenant. Many Landlords will have found damp patches and rising water (In a cellar in my instance) without prior expectation or knowledge, as the water table has risen dramatically this summer and started from a high point (as it did in Staffordshire) this spring.

Action.

But none of this does remove the fact that more action is required and this is what concerns me about the report. Shelter ask for more positive action to be taken by Councils at the same time confirming a rise in the number of successful prosecutions or orders for improvements. But if Shelter feel this is not sufficient, then it is clear the system is not working and something else needs to be done.

Further breakdown.

Firstly, I would like to know exactly what the breakdown is between privately run property in the hands of Landlords and fully Managed property in the hands of Agents. As I have confirmed, two houses reported in twelve years with nearly 400 houses under our Management would suggest, if other Agencies operate with both the correct knowledge and standards, that the majority would be privately managed. So firstly let’s have a better breakdown of the figures and more information as to which areas Shelter feel better action needs to be taken.

Now for the old chestnut.

Because when figures are broken down and if Councils are unable to follow up and prosecute sufficient cases then clearly a new system is required and yes, for me that is qualified Agents who pass a Government designed test (with the co-operation and involvement of the Industry professional bodies if possible) and all Landlords must be registered and approved themselves, and if not then approved and registered Agents must look after their properties.

Standards improving.

There is no doubt that the quality of housing in the Private rental sector IS improving and best advice to all Landlords which should always be our objective when marketing a property, is to consider the competition. To Landlords who are not prepared to present and protect property and therefore their Tenants correctly, we must always point out what needs to be done and why using the same principle! If the advice is not taken, then we cannot manage the property. Surely, professional standards to the same level would be the solution bodies such as Shelter wish for?

Drum banging time.

Legislation is overdue because of confirmation in reports like this that the current system does not work. Councils are too thin on the ground and cannot police and control the current system. If all Agents and Landlords had to meet qualifications laid down or not be able to rent property out, the system would be self policing – surely this is the way forward.

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.

By Steve Roulstone

Today’s subject has been a thorny one for Tenants as long as I have been a Letting Agent and longer. Problems that occur within houses if not reported can make far more damage than if reported without delay once it has been noted. The issue is who’s responsibility is the additional damage caused and who is liable for any costs in putting the situation right.

Old cases.

There are many that I could quote but I suppose the first time this happened is the one that I remember the best. This was a leak from a bathroom and the subsequent damage to a kitchen ceiling. The problem was water tracking around the side of a shower curtain and slowly soaking the plaster above the kitchen until a whole section fell off.

Tenant view.

The Tenant view was that the fault was with the shower curtain and that she could not be held responsible for the damage caused. Our view was that both the fact that it was obvious that water was finding its way through and the additional damage caused by failing to report the matter were both the responsibility of the Tenant. Just because something does not work correctly, does not mean you should keep using it ignoring the consequences.

Coverall.

Of course your agreement should ensure that it is quite clear that if secondary damage is caused under these circumstances then the cost is down to the Tenant for failing to address the issue (report it) then half of the battle is won, but we must not forget that we now have the arbitration system if Tenants disagree and I can confirm that the system has always supported us in such cases when claim has had to be made.

Long process.

Of course the knowledge that we should be proven right is not the whole and not what we rely upon, because in the first instance somebody has to pay for the remedial work and as we have found on numerous occasions, a system that does not allow for immediate resolution can annoy those who have to pay for works that they should not have to do so, and wait until a Tenant vacates before the money can be re-cooped.

Getting it right from the start.

This is why good Agents will endeavour to get resolution at the time of the incident and why Tenants may find themselves involved in lengthy discussions that they feel are invasive at the time. But as Property Managers, Agents cannot just ignore the situation.

Current case.

What bought the issue to mind is a Company let, where secondary damage is quiet severe, as a known leek from a cistern, instead of being reported, was contained in a small bowl and repeatedly emptied. The inevitable happened and the bowl was forgotten along it seems with the leak. The subsequent damage is a ruined carpet and underlay, damp walls to well over a meter high and ruined plasterwork and of course the decoration. Apart from anything else, having now dealt with the leak (The only bit the Landlord is responsible for) we now will have to wait several weeks, with the aid of a de-humidifier, before the repair work can be undertaken.

Conclusion.

This case will of course mean several difficult conversations and meetings but that is what we must do to protect the Landlord but as a clearer case I trust you can understand why the damage should not be at the Landlords expense and also understand why the Landlord should not have to stand out of pocket for works which are liable to cost anything up to £500 to repair.

By Steve Roulstone

There is an article in this week’s Property Drum on page 8 that has caught my eye as one of the chain of Letting Agents who have had to address issues in Scotland have commented upon the Shelter campaign surrounding the removal of Tenant fees. I would have to say I agree with  some of what they say, but I disagree with the main thrust of their argument.

Explaining the group.

First, to place some context behind what I wish to say about the subject, I need to explain where the difference lays between Martin & Co offices and Castle Estates offices, because we both have a Franchising background, but now Castle Estates is an independent group who share the same name, but operate entirely independently of each other and have no central controlling Head Office. Martin & Co remain a Franchising organisation where centre influence and dictate the policy of the group.

Comments are my own.

 Therefore I am commenting as an Independent Castle Estates in Staffordshire and not as the Head of an organisation in the same light as Sue Hopson, head of standards at Martin & Co is doing. As far as Castle Estates offices are concerned, if they operate in a manner I disagree with, then they are also the target of my comments.

Agreement.

Firstly I must say that the whole idea of dropping Tenant fees altogether as is the case in Scotland does not just move costs from the Tenant to the Landlord, for just as sure as Landlords will have to pay for the costs generated, these costs will be offset by increases in rent. Then, as has always been the case, market forces will drive rent levels to their correct rate. But they will start from and therefore remain at a higher level.

Major factor missed.

What the comments miss are the manner in which many Agents and I am not referring to anybody specifically when I say this, reduce Landlord fees and raise Tenant fees so they can market themselves as a cheap Agent in to Landlords in the first place! This is a short sighted policy and will surely attract the attention of such groups as Shelter and the CAB who have been looking at Tenants fees for well over ten years.

Bad practise.

In a market where the number of offices offering Letting services has probably doubled in the last three years as Estate Agents flooded to the Lettings Industry for financial reasons, the opportunity to advertise services to Landlords at low prices at the expense of the Tenants has seemed to much of an opportunity to miss for some. But the short sightedness of such an approach should Tenant fees be scrapped in England will need to be explained to Landlords and of course all of us will have to do this, not just those who overcharge.

Long term practise.

It is also a fact that high Tenant fees are nothing new and I have no problem in pointing the finger at Estate Agents who historically have been the main protagonists of this practise. Do I have Tenant fees? Yes, but they have hardly changed in over twelve years and I am happy to justify them, as I have done before now, to any Tenant coming through our system.

Inevitable?

Unless our Industry receives the backing of the Government in driving through legislation to ensure professional standards are upheld by all Letting Agencies, or they can no longer operate, then I believe the day will come when Tenant charges are dropped altogether justified or not, because those with this objective will always be able to point at practises that take advantage of Tenants where fees are concerned. But equally, as I have pointed out that from my own perspective I speak for my own office only, anybody else speaking on the subject should not ignore the current practise of high charges and should be able to ensure that offices under their control can justify what they charge Tenants as well!

By Steve Roulstone

I have stated before that one of the major problems with legislation that is policed by Councils is the amount of effort placed upon seeking out Landlords and Agents that ignore the law. This applies to Houses of Multiple Occupation, Fit and proper accommodation, Tenant deposits and in the case to hand today, Gas Safety certificates.

Local Council request.

In this instance a Landlord who was asked to provide copies of Gas Safety certificates for two properties in Staffordshire by her local Council and having failed to do so was referred to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). It is they that then pursued the matter, but it is good to see a Council taking a pro-active stance in ensuring property is properly maintained.

Legal requirement.

Just to confirm, for those without Gas in a property, the Gas Safety certificate is needed each year to ensure the equipment is working correctly and is safe to use (carbon monoxide gases)

No excuse!

The end result was a fine of £4709 including costs for a £65 job! There can be no excuse for not complying, especially as this Landlord ignored the requests for many months. This also included being given time to produce a certificate by the HSE within a month of notices issued.

Landlord needed convincing.

It does however strike me that by having gone through a procedure with the Local Council and then being given time by the HSE to comply, perhaps the problem lay not in what should have been done, but that the Landlord just did not believe prosecution would actually take place! It looks as though the whole affair took well over a year before any prosecution actually took place!

Contradiction in effect.

This is where action needs to be seen to take place quicker, because if the Law requires a Certificate to be renewed every year, then in a scenario where a certificate does not exist in the first place, to take a year to bring a case to court (assuming that one does now exist?) then the appliances concerned could have been unsafe for anything up to two years!

Does not add up!

Now forgive me for playing the cynic and far be it from me to suggest the Law is not correct, I would not dream of risking not having a property covered for a week, never mind a year, but to take a whole year to bring the case to conclusion for a Law that requires annual checks somewhat makes a mockery of the legislation that demands the check in the first place. Surely by delaying instant action, you are ignoring the supposed risk the Tenants are suffering?

 

By Steve Roulstone

As part of our good practises when reviewing our methods of operation, between us we always discuss what Landlords ask about and speak about when we visits them to give a valuation and review of their property. It is important for us to be aware of any new trends and old ones and surprisingly, one trend that does not change is that Landlords are still discussing and talking about ‘Nightmare Tenant’ stories and what is done to stop them occurring.

Changed Market.

The market has changed considerably and I am sure will keep evolving over the next ten years. Certainly technology and mobile phones have meant we have to make information available quickly and accessible. Standard of housing has improved as competition for Tenants continues to grow and more and more properties enter the market. Yet the one thing that will not go away is the stories of Tenants trashing houses and the fear that brings with it.

Not common.

Yet certainly as far as I can comment on the houses we have been involved with, this is something that rarely happens now and I cannot remember the last time we had a property that was badly damaged by the Tenants.  We, like all Agents, get Tenants that do not care for property in the way that both our Landlords and we would prefer, but this is always a case of standards rather than actual physical damage done.

Strange beliefs.

There are also plenty of situations where what should be done and what the Tenants actually believe needs to be done differ, such as the Tenant who stated they did not need to clean one bedroom, because they had never used it during the Tenancy. Or the person who broke a window when mowing the lawn and said the Landlord had to be responsible because the lawn from where the stone came was the Landlords and not hers!

Manage to avoid.

The answer for me is to catch problems early and make sure the Tenant knows both their responsibility and our role as Agents in what you are trying to achieve together. In short, good Management will ensure damage limitation. But what this does prove is that some cases must still happen and that bad stories are the ones most Landlords hear first, or perhaps take note of!

Practical experience.

In the middle of writing this Blog, I have visited a new Landlord at their property, student accommodation it may have been, but she described the manner in which the last Agents had allowed the students to live last year. Not a property wrecked, as I have stated, more a question of standards. But it does rather prove my point. Whether self Managing or appointing an Agent, make sure that visits take place and that problems are resolved head on and not left to fester. Perhaps then we may allay Landlords fears by reducing further tales of the ‘Horror Tenants’

By Steve Roulstone

A few weeks ago I wrote that Residential Insulation which is currently being promoted through the Governments Carbon Emission Reduction Traget CERT and the possibility of Landlords being able to claim for expenditure against annual costs, was very difficult to explain to current Landlords and Tenants when the Industry itself had no way of communicating its message.

VNR Contracting Services.

I am pleased to confirm that I have now found a Company who is not only being proactive in speaking and working with other organisations, but that understood what we are trying to do, but is also happy to put leg work in themselves in achieving a result.

Landlord and Tenant choices.

What we need to know is that as Property Managers, we can rely upon a Company who specialise in the Insulation field to explain clearly the benefits of having Insulation fitted and the grants that are currently available for Landlord and Tenant alike, one through direct costs and one through the tax incentive currently being offered.

Action plan.

This means we will be able to write to our Tenants and Landlords alike with information relevant to them and then allow the Company to follow up with visits to answer questions and quote for the work direct ensuring that our Tenants and Landlords are able to take advantage of the schemes before winter this year, if they choose to get involved.

Service provided.

To us, this is part of what we should be doing as Property Managers on behalf of all of our clients, not for any other reason than from a central point we are in a position to receive information as Companies approach us and distribute the same to a wide audience. It is not for us to dictate what decisions are made or even recommend what options are pursued, rather to place the information in front of those who have the right to take advantage of the grants etc that become available.

Reliable Contractor.

What is reassuring now is that having struggled to find a Contractor to work with, we have been approached by one who already works with local Councils and as such carries a pedigree that is re-assuring. I am happy to recommend VNR Contracting Services Ltd and in reality that is only the second recommendations we have made in over two years of writing!

By Steve Roulstone

In looking at the second part of the Review of the Barriers to Institutional Investment in private Rented Homes, I have read and will comment on the sections headlined; The Barriers and Conclusion and The Recommendations.

 The Barriers.

 Most of these sections concentrate on the land and planning permission needs, but do refer to some rather confusing detail. Such as that Management costs are as high as 30% for Residential property. Now I know that National Companies specialise in offering services for Companies with large property portfolios, but when you consider the normal cost for Management on a local level would average at 10%, I find it difficult to see how this rises to 30% when managing from afar.

 Total Costs.

 I may of course be wrong, but it rather looks as though it is the cost of maintaining the property that has been added to the running costs, however, as the report confirms that it is normally Capitol growth that is considered to be the income from residential and not the rental income, whereas with Commercial investment it is the opposite way round. Surely then, if Commercial values drop over time, the cost of maintenance should be offset against Capitol growth and it is both that should be considered, as they are real income, when comparing residential to Commercial? Is this where encouraging Tax breaks can be made?

 Local market.

 Otherwise, once again, local Management will answer the cost issue, rather than distance Management having to find a local Agent to carry out the role of providing a Tenant, let the Local agent be the sole property Manager. Costs halved? – probably!

Lack of Experience.

The report then states that there is a lack of experience in knowing how any scheme would operate. But this does not exist in the market place; rather this confirms that in compiling the report, the Property Management Industry has not been approached. A fact confirmed by the later statement in Recommendation Five: that the market would benefit from; the professionalism of the management service. Had the Industry been spoken with (also confirmed in the Terms of Reference) then Sir Adrian Montague would have been aware that one already exists.

Right Model.

I also believe that the right model already exists as well. There are numerous professional Letting agents, who also operate as Property Managers as well, looking after leasehold sites (Block Management) throughout the UK. Providing that any incentives in profitability and land availability are made available Nationwide and providing there exists Agents with the ability to run both, then costs can be controlled, the whole Industry will benefit and progress can be made throughout the UK.

Professional Management.

But I believe that this is another opportunity for the Government to change their attitudes towards the rental sector, which is growing at the same speed home ownership for individuals is declining giving a thriving rental sector the opportunity to be part of the growth if not the very reason for it, that this country desperately needs. Tied with ensuring the Industry moves forward in a professional self managed, or Government managed (although I believe this is where the lack of motivation currently exists) manner, ensuring the scheme meets all the requirements listed in this report and that the properties concerned will continue to give the profitable long term return institutional investors require.

By Steve Roulstone

The Montague report which reviews the manner in which the Private Rented Section is viewed by the Institutional Investment market has been released and is available for download from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The basic idea of the report was to look at why Investors do not look upon the Private Rental sector in the same way that they do Commercial property investment.

 The report is a weighty 28 pages of Summary and evaluation, but holds many good ideas and could just see the way forward for our sector as we struggle to meet the demands of a modern mobile work force. It is in three sections and is going to take at least two posts to comment upon, in this first post, I have selected highlights from the Background and Evidence sections in this post. I will follow this up by looking at the Barriers, Conclusions and Recommendations.

 Growth.

 I am a total advocate for the building industry (Housing) being the vehicle for leading the way out of recession. This is why I am always looking at new build and activity and look to the property sales figures of a guidance for where financially we currently sit. It is therefore nice to see clear figures quoted to support my theory. For every £1m spent, 12 jobs are created or supported and for every £1 invested in construction, £2.60 is generated elsewhere in the supply chain. The supporting sources are listed in the report.

 Local or distant Management.

 It struck me quickly when looking at the Evidence that a market exists, that there was a need to build in assured maintenance. I agree whole heartedly, that any long term scheme should include an organised plan for both maintaining of and maintenance on the property concerned. My immediate thought was to ensure the properties are managed locally and not by some distant organisation, to ensure both a distribution of the Management structure and workload through local contractors rather than the majority of the expenditure remaining in London.

 Across the Country.

 To do this, as the report recognises, there needs to be many differing schemes, which, in order to maximise the effect across the Country, as highlighted above, needs to be spread across the country and not concentrating again in the area that generates ever increasing rent levels; London. It is important in arriving at any conclusion that promotes and encourages Investor growth in Private rented property, that the whole Country sees the benefits.

 Wardens.

 Unsurprisingly, the wish to see Wardens or a Management presence in specific developments is a nice idea, but one that is only reflected for affordability, through the size of the initial development. As an Agent who Manages whole sites on behalf of one owner, exactly the type of site referred to in the report or that would be developed as a result of Investors becoming involved, there is a recognisable limit to the size of what are acceptable sizes of development so as not to have to large an impact on the local market, both by type of property available and by long term effect on local suburbs. In short, there are places that high rise buildings fit in and areas where they do not! Wardens suit large buildings but would cost too much for more localised schemes offering between 20 and 40 units.

 Long Term Agreements.

 I think it is a good idea to generate an agreement that sits well for longer than the current popular Assured Short Term agreement, but by the same token, I see no need to do this by changing the AST. As case of ‘It ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ But a document built around the normal lease as exists for purchasing leasehold property would be ideal. This could still give the Tenant of this shorter term lease the protection afforded to the leaseholder, whilst reflecting the short term usage and the interests of the Freeholder as well.

 Block Management.

 It is suggested that Management of such buildings would tie in nicely with the current Block Management style and again as this is one of the services we offer I can comment and could not agree more. This would be ideal providing that local Companies were sought for provision of services, instead of the properties being managed from afar. Why do I feel this is important? Because we have grown our business on the dissatisfaction of leaseholders whose representative never visit sites or more importantly, cannot be visited because their offices are in London, Birmingham or Manchester.

 There are some great ideas in this report and I look forward to commenting on the conclusions but if there is one point of caution it is that consideration has to be made as to the spread of housing, which is needed throughout the Country as well as provision of service, which, to avoid complaints about schemes failing to deliver and being unapproachable, need to be sourced close to the buildings concerned.

 More to follow!