Tag Archives: Tenant Information

10Sep 2012

Property Landlord advice: Insulation now available!

⋅ Leave a Comment

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!

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!

22Aug 2012

Tenant advice: Social housing lacking major detail.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A short topic today, but a situation that has left me somewhat surprised by what I found last week when helping a Family member move in to a new rented home through a social housing organisation.

The Lady checking the Tenant in and I, with a common interest in renting, chatted about the differences between what they do in the social sector and what we do in the private sector and it was noticeable that despite the obvious difference being the nature of the Tenant, and their circumstances, the trappings of how we do our business remains the same, I pad and agreements in hand!

What we did not speak about and what I found the most dramatic difference was the standard of the house concerned and what Tenants are supposed to put up with in the social sector. Actually, it was not so much the house as the fittings or lack of them!

The property itself was fairly modern, being no older than twenty years or so, but downstairs only had laminate in the kitchen and bare concrete floors elsewhere. Upstairs the picture was the same with bare wooden floorboards and throughout, not a curtain at any window.

I can just imagine the reaction of any private Tenant should I carry out a viewing at a house and inform them they would have to carpet throughout and find curtains for every window themselves! I can assure you we would let very few houses!

There was also the question of the state and condition. The Kitchen had three walls painted red and one wall half painted (and not in a its finished type of half) the main bedroom was painted in union flag shades of red blue and white, in blocks some two feet wide, in stripes! The second bedroom in cerise pink on one wall only! Now when we check Tenants out of a property we ensure the decoration is both as it was when the Tenancy started and therefore in good order for the new Tenant and start of Tenancy. It seems clear that when people leave social housing they are not checked, or if they are nothing is done to correct or put right the type of decorating schemes that would strike us in the private sector speechless.

The obvious smack in the mouth opinion that I am left with, is that those who have little choice of where they are able to live because of their financial position ensuring they do not have choice, have to accept whatever house becomes available when it is offered and are therefore also left with the bill of being able to live with the very basics of comforts by having to purchase both carpets and curtains themselves!

This when they are where they are because of financial difficulties is a situation which does not sit well with me. Perhaps I am naive in my outlook, but it is clear the Housing authorities and Social Housing providers are happy to rely upon the charity of the wider family to enable those in dire straits to be provided with such basic comforts as curtains and carpets!

At least if the Government do manage to find a way of attracting the Private sector to social Tenants, another much wider subject of discussion, at least they will enjoy a far better standard of accommodation without the fear of how much such a move could cost them or their relatives!

10Aug 2012

Tenant advice: Trust in your Agent.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The question of Tenants being able to trust their Agent, or knowing that the Agent they are about to do business through is one that can be trusted has shown itself in differing ways this week. There is a great difference between the two and again, as happens so often in our relationships with Tenants, it is the need for Tenants to understand why decisions are made that matters.

Firstly, from a professional viewpoint, in a Blog that I penned earlier this week, it is clear that as an industry we need to keep banging the drum about the standards that we as professional Agents sign up to. By being a member of a professional body, in our case ARLA we are showing the standards that we operate to and confirming that monies are protected both in the manner in which we run our business and the audit checks we are subject to, in order to retain our membership. SafeAgent, the kite mark adopted and marketed to further give proof of client money protection and standards should go hand in hand.

In short, if an Agent does not belong to either (Other professional bodies such as NALS and of course RICS are of course acceptable) especially SafeAgent, then as a Tenant or Landlord I would ask why not?

Then there is the day to day life of being an Agent where we are subject to the wrath of the Tenants and prospective Tenants if matters do not develop how they wish.  These so often include either being turned down for property because of being in receipt of Housing Benefit payments and the most common one, having a pet. Not forgetting of course, retention of deposits!

The detail behind the reasons when housing Benefit payments are involved are of course individual in every case, but what is always common, is that payments are made in arrears and in 13 four weekly instalments. Set this against normal monthly payments in advance and then add the difficulty created by the Council stopping payments without any consultation with us as Agents and knowing just how long it can take for payments to start again and it is not difficult to see why we do not need to recommend this situation to our Landlords.

Again in short, legally, we have to give best advice to our Landlords at all times!

Pets in houses are another long topic. Again, each situation is different, but the standards set by some pet owners damage the hopes of so many others that we cannot ignore them. Even without bad management, pets can leave an unwanted legacy, we have had too many instances of fleas up to a year after cats have vacated a property not to ignore the possibility! It is difficult to get an x Tenant to pay for carpet cleaning after they have left, so carpet cleaning becomes a must if any pet is involved.

The point I wish to make is what I have written is not unusual, and any potential Tenant affected by either scenario will have heard this and more. But those with qualifications and affiliations with professional bodies probably, by nature of how they prepare their staff, will have a better understanding of how to manage the situation and can therefore be better relied upon to look after Tenants interests and give them the ‘Duty of Care’ they deserve!

Deposits are an altogether more complicated process now, but in dealing with issues left by Tenants and confirming the payments required to correct those issues, the excuses given at times scream that the Tenants involved have no faith whatsoever in how we go about our business when, if affiliated, as discussed above, we have been trained, have years of experience and know exactly what we can and cannot claim for.

In all cases, if we are wrong, the decision is made through arbitration. We prove our case and judgement is made. If an Agent loses a case through arbitration (and here I can only speak for the Castle Estates offices) it is usually because the case was badly prepared and paperwork let them down, rather than because they were making a false claim. Membership of organisations such as ARLA and schemes such as SafeAgent should enforce this view with Tenants.

The fact they do not means more needs to be done to gain trust as an industry, more needs to be done to further the name of professional bodies (Here comes the drum) and the Government needs to get involved and introduce the legislation confirming the fact and introducing the correct level of penalty for those who operate outside of legislation. In the meantime, look for the symbols of professional membership they all have back up, but more importantly, what they stand for is professional intent!

06Aug 2012

Current Property News: Ban and fine for bad Agent not enough.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

An Agent who went bankrupt with liabilities of over £400,000 has been found guilty by an NAEA hearing and fined £2500.00. At the same time it has been confirmed following an investigation by The Insolvency Services that he has been banned from being a Company Director for fight years.

Figures confirmed.

The report confirms a figure close to £40000 as being the amount they say Landlords and Tenants lost as a result of his failure to comply with the 2004 legislation regarding Tenants deposits in the correct manner. What appears to be missing from the research I have carried out is any conviction, as it was the Landlords who were then made liable for the subsequent fines of up to three times the deposit that followed from the failure of GDH to register them correctly.

Total?

It is obvious therefore that the total cost to Landlords and Tenants will never be known, but a conservative estimate of around £75000 would seem to be reasonable; depending upon how many Landlords were levied with the appropriate fine (Three times the original deposit)

Fair?

Now is it me? As an Agent who has constantly banged the drum for registration of Letting Agents for the last ten years, being banned from being a Director and slapped with a £2500 fine, does not seem to be fair when all of the individual cases (and there will be many to make up this kind of figure) are taken in to account? In my opinion, what would seem fairer as far as the Industry is concerned would be that he was never allowed to work as a Letting Agent ever again. This kind of punishment can only come as the result of an Industry protected under legislation and proves to me once again that the Government should be able to see that intervention is needed.

Total ban.

I say total bane, because we all know how simple it is to start again with a relative as a Director and it is only a total ban (as in lost the right to be associated) that would be fair in my opinion to all those who lost money.  It is only through Government legislation that such a rule could be enforced. Only then, would Landlords and Tenants know that they and their money was protected.

Systems exist.

And let’s not forget, that such systems to protect our customers already exist! To register with most professional bodies means monies need to be accounted for within the auditing requirements of remaining a member.  It would also be a simple step to have all deposits registered with people other than Agents own Clients account, such as DPS even though this is something I have spoken out against in the past (How would a Solicitor react to being told he could not keep clients funds?) it would be a small sacrifice as opposed to having workable legislation! And then Safe Agent, the latest initiative from professional bodies within the Industry, which already provides all the protection needed for any Landlord or Tenant!

Not far now.

I believe that it is inevitable that the Government will legislate and cases such as this show the need, all we now require is for the systems professional Agents have put in place and promoted, to be endorsed by a Government and hopefully a more suitable and long standing deterrent will be available!

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!

03Jul 2012

Client Money Protection explained and TPO client survey.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Mike Edwards

Client Money Protection explained and TPO client survey.

Letting Agents can go bust (I know!) But when they do, it can be amid claims of owing landlords and tenants thousands of pounds, so here’s a quick guide to what Landlords and Tenants should look for to safeguard their money.

Letting agents are not regulated, which means anyone can open and trade as a letting agent without any qualifications or licence. Like any other business, if a letting agent stops trading, landlords and tenants become creditors and risk losing any rents or deposits held by the agent.

To stop this, several industry groups run ‘client money protection’ schemes – sometimes called ‘CMP’. Belonging to a client money protection scheme does not mean a landlord will receive compensation if something goes wrong – the schemes have terms and conditions, like time limits for claims and caps on pay outs, so check the finer points do not exclude your rental business.

The main CMP schemes are:

● National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS)

NALS will pay up to £25,000 for any one claim, with a cap for landlords of three months’ rent. The total top pay out for a single claim is £300,000, while the scheme will only pay £3 million in any one year.

● Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA)

ARLA will compensate a landlord up to a limit of £25,000. Landlord claims are limited to three months’ rent. The total payable for a member company is £500,000. In any one year, the scheme has a limit of £3 million.

● Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS will pay a maximum of £50 000 per letting agents, subject to an overall limit for the scheme of £5.3 million for any one year.

● SafeAgent

SafeAgent is not a CMP scheme, but an umbrella group for letting agents who are members of a CMP scheme. The aim is to promote money protection by displaying a single, recognisable logo that shows any money with a letting agent is safeguarded. Letting agents belonging to client money protection schemes should display a logo of one or more of the schemes listed above on their web sites and letterheads.

Even if you see the logo, still check the CMP scheme web site to make sure membership is valid. Some unscrupulous letting Agents say they are members and use the logo when client money is not protected. Don’t forget that just because the agent was part of a CMP scheme one year does not mean membership is still in force years later – check every year.

TPO canvasses members over CMP

The Property Ombudsman Scheme (TPO) is also aware of the importance of CMP as it is now canvassing member firms over the provision of insurance.

“Whilst membership of TPO requires all residential sales and letting agents to abide by the TPO Codes of Practice, have Professional Indemnity Insurance, and agents holding clients’ money to deposit this money in a separate clients account, it does not currently require residential letting agents to hold CMP,” explains Bill McClintock, chairman of the TPO operating company who is circulating a consultation document to members. “Given that the Code of Practice is generally accepted as the primary standards document in the industry, the omission of such an important aspect needs to be addressed. “This is something the board and the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, have been considering for some time and recent incidences of both landlords and tenants suffering financial loss means action on CMP is now imperative. Private residential lettings reportedly make up 17 per cent of the UK housing stock.”

The consultation paper sets out various options and points out that member’s of ARLA, NALS, and RICS are required to have CMP. Some letting and management companies acting as subcontractors also provide CMP on all landlord and tenant funds.

McClintock is asking TPO members which of these options, or an alternative fallback position that all TPO member firms without CMP must disclose in writing and actively flag its absence at the point of instruction or sale of services, they would prefer to see enforced through the TPO Lettings Code of Practice.

 “TPO and its Codes of Practice are part of a consumer protection regime with the firm objective of raising standards in the industry,” adds McClintock. “Whilst TPO cannot force agents to sign up to the Code, firms should see the Codes as enhancing the reputation of the industry and for those that are already members of TPO the addition of a clause requiring CMP will enable them to demonstrate to landlords and tenants that their money is protected.

“TPO is a not-for-profit company and will not itself offer CMP to member firms as a new revenue stream. It is not appropriate for TPO to offer such services but I believe it is appropriate for member firms to have such cover. However, members now have the opportunity to express what they think should be the minimum required standard.”

28Jun 2012

Property Landlord advice: Energy performance just not getting through.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have had cause of late to look at the tax allowance for Landlords in relation to insulating properties (Landlords Energy Saving Allowance) and with the intention of providing a good service for the Landlords we manage property for, I have been looking at how to get the message across in letters to not only the Landlords, but also the current Tenants who will of course benefit from lower bills, indeed most of the interest has come from Tenants who are able to claim grants against insulation costs in some cases at virtually no cost at all, in seeking permission to have insulation installed in loft or walls.

Little interest.

The problem seems to be that very few people are actually interested despite all of the talk around the Green Deal which is due to be introduced by 2018 and was again in the news last week, although the Government release gave very little content or actual information to assist you in understanding what this bill will mean to Landlords.  The problem though seems to be lack of knowledge of what is currently available and this is probably because it is still too little for Landlords to consider.

The Industry.

I have looked for information from one of the leading insulation suppliers to help get the message across but it would seem that not only do they have no literature to explain the current assistance Landlords can claim but have very little knowledge as employees either. This is a bit surprising considering the tax allowance of £1500 has been available for many years but what seems to be more surprising is that it is due to be phased out by 2015.

Landlords.

There is certainly very little knowledge amongst our Landlords and that is one reason why I wanted to go through this procedure, because as Agents we should always advise our Landlords, but apart from a release by the Residential Landlords Association which is very current, I have seen little other promotion or discussion.

Tenants.

You would think given the current legislation surrounding EP Certificates that Tenants would be on the ball! But since the introduction of EPC’s, we have carried out on well over 3000 viewings (as a conservative estimate) and yet we are still never asked for the EPC more than once a month. Roughly 1%. However, when Tenants are able to benefit from installing insulation at very little cost, then that is where interest does grow and why shouldn’t it?

Conclusion.

What this does seem to show is that whatever the end result of the Green Deal, what is on offer, is going to have to be easy to understand and attractive to all concerned if it is to be a success. Otherwise it will be ignored and clearly if this is enforceable then we will once again have further legislation that will produce a black hole for Councils looking to enforce matters such as Houses of Multiple Occupation legislation and indeed the current EPC legislation which only come to light when those who ignore it are caught. This is purely because Councils do not have the man power to seek out Landlords who fail to comply and the danger is that this legislation will fall under the same heading!

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.

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.