Tag Archives: Landlord Advice

29Mar 2011

Landlord Property Visits: Good Management or Just Being Nosey?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Craig Smith

One way of monitoring the condition of a let property is to visit on a regular basis for a property visit.  This can be an ideal time to discuss any issues that may have arisen or any future plans, but are the visits to keep the property in good condition or just to have a look at what the Tenant is doing?

Always Arrange an Appointment

Any visits by the Landlord or Landlord’s agent should be agreed with the Tenant. Best practice states that agreement should be in writing although in some circumstances, a telephone conversation may be more personal. Whether it is the Landlord or a contractor to carry out repairs, permission should always be sought from the Tenant in order to gain access to the property, even if it is exterior work!

Shouldn’t This Have a Battery?!

The visits should ONLY be to monitor the condition of the property and, if needed, give advice to the Tenant as to how to best look after the property to avoid any damage. For example, maybe mould is developing around a window, you may advise the Tenant to clean it off and keep the room ventilated.

Also, the Landlord should make reasonable steps to ensure that fixtures and appliances are still in working order, such as smoke alarms. The Tenant should always ensure that any battery is working and should test the alarm regularly but if the Landlord tests it themselves on a visit, best advice can be given to the Tenant.

How Often Should I Visit?

There is no real right or wrong answer as to how often a Landlord should visit their rental property, although trying to visit too often could make a Tenant feel harassed. Castle Estates visit fully managed properties on a Landlords behalf around every 3 months or so. This is to keep an eye on any parts of the property that may deteriorate such as bath & sink seals or window frames becoming rotten.  By reporting back to our Landlords, we can carry out preventative maintenance or advise the Tenants on how best to avoid any costs.

But the Dishes Haven’t Been Washed!

Remember, property visits are only to assess the condition of the property and not how a Tenant chooses to live. Everybody lives differently so some people may be tidier than others but whether belongings are left tidy or not is only a matter of opinion. The best way of looking at the difference is that there may be unwashed saucepans left on the kitchen worktop which is fine, but when a hot saucepan has burnt into the worktop, there should be correspondence between the Landlord/Agent and Tenant as this could help to avoid any disputes at the end of a tenancy.

29Mar 2011

Current Property News: Letting Agent Kitemark – Yes Please!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The National Approved Lettings Scheme (NALS) are to champion a new Kite mark for Letting Agents with compliant CMP (Client Money Protection) and as the owner of the Castle Estates brand, I would like to throw my weight totally behind the scheme and the principals that the scheme promotes. I have long stated through these pages that I firmly believe in and openly support any move towards confirming professionalism in our industry and can only congratulate those behind this move.

Public will benefit.

Every Agent should embrace this scheme, which is free for those who already have CMP. It is now down to every qualifying Agent to sell the system and advise our Landlords that we both embrace it and what the scheme means. In simple terms, every Agent who carries this Kite mark will by definition, protect and insure the Landlords money. It is time for us not to just sell the advantages but also make sure that both our existing and potential Landlords are aware of the implications of NOT being able to display the Kite Mark. It is time we stood loud and proud and waved the flag of Professionalism as often as possible!

Government take note.

But to me this is also an opportunity to say to the Government that as an Industry we believe they made the wrong decision in not following through with registration of Agents as recommended by the Rugg review of 2009. This is another reason why I champion the decision, if the Government will not support us as an Industry through legislation, then as an Industry we must legislate ourselves. I am not suggesting we do not need the Government, because as the report (link above) states, this is not law, but hopefully, sufficient Agents will adopt this opportunity that the Government has to take note and will in time back us with the type of legislation that will once and for all confirm our Industry as Professional.

Why do we need legislation?

As an Industry, like so many others in difficult times, we are offering our services at reduced rates through Competition. I firmly believe that no matter what price we offer our service, they should always be accompanied by the Guarantees offered by CMP and professional membership to bodies such as NALS and ARLA. Such membership does have its costs, which can be significant and along with having qualified staff to carry out the full range of services that a Professional Letting Agency should offer we can quite often find ourselves competing at a disadvantage to Companies that risk the implications of operating without Guarantees for their clients and at a reduced level of service.

Legislation equals Professionalism.

Unfortunately the papers are still full of Offices that have collapsed because of discrepancies in Client accounts (monies held). Confirming the continued need for legislation, especially at a time when so many have been attracted to what is unusually at present, a growing market. Further proof of this is the Financial Increase we are currently paying for continued CMP cover. An increase which comes about purely because of claims made against the scheme. In summary, this Industry is doing something positive to combat the difference to services available, but the Government can make it happen through Law. The Kite Mark is therefore very welcome, but legislation is still needed and as soon as possible please, in the meantime we can show our commitment by joining and letting the public know, why and what difference professional Agents make to this growing industry.

25Mar 2011

Current Property News: Landlord specialist Insurance must be given strong consideration.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is time once again to stress the importance of Landlords Insurance in the rental market, as we approach another year of difficulties in the workplace. This at a time when record numbers of properties are coming to our market sector and in many cases the demand for rental property is outstripping the supply, the risks MUST be understood by Landlords and the added security of such Insurance Policies as far as I am concerned are the minimum requirement for Landlords, especially those who are renting property for the first time.

Nobody can be secure.

I am not alone in promoting the values of such Insurance and the common sense reasoning is there for all to see. With a policy that protects both the rent and covers the costs of evicting a Tenant, at a time when redundancies are growing (This BBC News link will confirm) Letting Agents should be suggesting that all Landlords take such a policy as a matter of course as no Letting Agent can confirm that the Tenant that they source for the property will not be one of those who may suffer this fate themselves.

Solutions do exist.

 

Of course, any professional Agency will have their tried and tested systems to show how arrears are dealt with and dependent upon the situation surrounding the Tenant (who will always be professionally referenced) could negotiate the surrender of the property on the Landlords behalf and of course with the Landlords approval. But with the best will in the world, and with the best of intentions, no Agent can either stop problems occurring or be able to foresee the manner in which Tenants may react to bad news.

Cost is not prohibitive.

 

With six month’s rent and legal expenses covered for as little as £100.00 in some cases, and as a Landlord myself, I can see no reason why this peace of mind policy should not be taken, but it is not just new Landlords that should take advantage of the policy, I believe all Landlords should consider doing so no matter how long they have rented their property. This cost when considered against the risk, whilst proving that the risk being covered is not a common problem (No insurance that covers a cost risk of several thousand pounds if claimed upon on a regular basis could still be available at such a low premium) is at such a low cost that it really should be taken against every property let, because when a Tenant neither pays or moves on it is not only the fact that it is such a costly process to the individual Landlord against the property concerned, I have also witnessed just how upsetting and time consuming it can be to the owner.   

Peace of mind.

 

It is the comfort factor alone, that income and legal expenses are covered that gives Landlords this feeling that at least they do not need to worry as professionals deal with the situation on their behalf. Instead of having to find a solicitor who not only understands property law (Not as common as you would think in the High Street) but have to be involved at every stage of the process themselves in the decision making, the policy ensures that professionals take all of these decisions on your behalf, as they ensure the matter is dealt with as swiftly as possible, simply because they are the ones paying if the matter is not dealt with in this manner, so yes I advice taking out this peace of mind insurance, perhaps the question should not be why, but rather why not?

21Mar 2011

Property Landlord advice: Utility Warehouse charges unfair on Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I had a very upsetting and disturbing situation develop last week on a house of mine that is occupied by Tenants and has been since I moved out last December. The disturbing matter, was that I received what can best be described as a mixture between a debt letter and a threatening letter advising that my account with Utility Warehouse was overdue by some £430.00 and that if I did not take IMMIEDIATE ACTION or worse still IGNORED THIS LETTER charges could rise to over £800.00

First reaction.

Now I do not know about you, but if somebody sends me a debt letter, for no reason what so ever, it does not make me very happy – what transpired when I phoned Utility Warehouse, for it appears to have been their debt collecting agency as I was internally transferred without any delay, made me even angrier!

The facts in this case.

What had actually happened was that we had advised UW that we were moving gave them our forwarding address and subsequently paid the final invoice and closed our account, something that was easy to confirm, as the account number on the stated debt letter was different than the one on our old invoices for this same address. The new Tenants had also been in touch, but they (UW) did not approve of the paperwork sent to confirm the Tenancy and instead of trying anything else they moved straight to debt recovery letter.

 Debt has to be recovered – does it not?

The problem with this debt letter was that they immediately opened another account in my name (as Landlord) and sent the debt letter to us! Now, I know that this could never stand up in court, but I just wonder how many people are not aware? It is a fact that no debt for services amassed by one person can be the responsibility of others, owners or not. No, what UW did here was take the easy way out and send a letter to somebody to get a reaction. Well I have news for you UW it worked!

My advice.

 What I am guessing they did not expect, was that the Landlord in this case would then put this absurd situation in writing and advise all Landlords NOT to have UW as their provider. It is a fact that the Tenant (A Company) as somebody that I have dealt with professionally for several years had no intention of staying with UW and had advised them of this fact, not that UW then made contact back with the Tenant to try and address the issue direct with the person responsible for the bills! Oh no, instead they opened an account in my name without even speaking with me. Now, let’s just look at that again.

Contradiction the name of the game.

 So because they were unhappy with paperwork sent by the people who were generating the invoices, UW would not accept them for a new account. Not that they did not open one in their name, rather that they changed the name when they decided the information was not complete. Now it is what they did next that is, in my opinion, a contradiction of what appear to be their own rules!  So rather than contact the Tenant and sort it out, they opened the account in my name, even though I had not asked for one and they had received no paperwork which they could approve or otherwise!! So it seems that what was not acceptable for the correct person did not matter for the wrong person!

Soft target!

And this is the rub for me, just because we made it known where we live and what we were doing with the property, UW decided to send us the invoice for no other reason than because we were there and available. This is treating Landlords with disrespect in my book and I get fed up of being treated as second class citizens where the rental market is concerned. (I did ask them to investigate and call me back, but their offices only receive incoming calls! Says it all really) We all know what our responsibilities are and we all know this would not happen if the property had been sold! UW would not have sent the invoice to the original owner and yet we are just as liable (as in not liable at all) as Landlords or as past owners. Think again UW treat us all with equal respect and put more effort in too sorting out problems rather than shooting at soft targets!

 

 

 

 

16Mar 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management and Letting Agents (Part 2)

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

There are several areas where having somebody who is qualified to understand the implications of renting leasehold property managing the site is to the advantage of the other Leaseholders and the running of the site (Block Management Company) in general. One of these is the need to ensure that any secondary agreement offered to a Tenant by a Leaseholder carries the requirements of the original lease within it, to ensure many basic stipulations of the site can be upheld.

Upholding the rules          

 

Without such inclusions, (which can be dealt with reasonably easily by anybody who understands the implications) such basic site rules as ‘No Caravans’ or ‘No Commercial Vehicles’ cannot be enforced as the agreement of the lease is with the leaseholder, not their Tenant The Tenant is only answerable to his legal agreement and if the clauses are not included, then the original Leaseholder in allowing the Tenant to break the lease and is the person therefore answerable to the Management Committee.

Ignorance is no excuse.

 

There is no way around this as I have found in my own experience, indeed it was only because one Tenant who parked a caravan on a site we Manage was very understanding, that we managed to have the rule enforced. The Leaseholder and therefore Landlord’s only excuse was lack of knowledge, because his Agent had not taken the time to check, which of course must be the situation up and down the country. But there are many clauses which can fall fowl of this problem, such as pets and of course the biggest problem of all, the permission to sub let in the first place.

Permission to rent.

 

Permission cannot be unreasonably withheld of course for any matter, but if the Leaseholders who live on the site as well as the Freeholder (if not self managed) who’s lease we are discussing here, did not intend the property to be available for rent, then by having a Letting Agent acting as block Managing Agent, whether acting for the Freeholder or the Block management Company (Residents) it is probably in the best interest of all concerned that the rule can be upheld.

Check before signing.

 

So the golden rule is to check before any sub-let is agreed and yet in all of my time as a Letting Agent who operates as a Block Managing Agent as well, I have never once received a phone call to request confirmation of the contents of the Lease or indeed ask if Permission is given on site, from either other agents or Landlords running their own Management. It begs the question just how many ticking time bombs exist out their?

11Mar 2011

Property Landlords advice: Resident Landlord agreements (Part 2)

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

The starting point and the fundamental factors in determining whether you are dealing with a Resident Landlord (ResLan) or not is whether the building is largely as originally constructed or has been converted. Or a purpose build block of flats no matter how small. If the latter and the builder/Landlord reserves one of the units to themselves not a problem it can never be a ResLan case. Similarly if the Landlord does not use the property as their main residence then equally it will not be a Reslan case.

What is a RESLAN Tenancy?

For it to be a ResLan tenancy therefore one of two things must happen, but in either case the accommodation must be self-contained even if it is a shared communal access – such as the hallway of a converted house. The 1988 Act says quite specifically that if both Landlord and Tenant live in the same original building and it is not a block of purpose built flats, then the tenant cannot have a 1988 Act tenancy. Therefore if you have a self contained flat upstairs and one downstairs and the landlord lives upstairs and the tenant lives downstairs, the tenant can have a Common Law contractual tenancy, but not an AST because it is Resident Landlord, and that puts it in the excluded category.

Licensor and Licensee.

Next assume a simple house and the tenant has their own bedroom but shares the kitchen (even if meals are not provided). If the Landlord was not living there this would be a Hybrid AST situation like any other sharer. But if the sharer or one of them is the Landlord then this is a typical lodger agreement and only a license will be granted and the wording throughout will be Licensor and Licensee – though in construction it could look very much like a normal tenancy agreement. However that may look like overkill for what is a fairly informal arrangement compared to a full blown tenancy. If the occupier where the Landlord lives in the same building (as originally constructed though possibly converted) shares any of the essential living accommodation (bathroom, kitchen even a lounge) then that occupier does not have exclusivity over all the accommodation and is a licensee and can only be granted a licence and not a tenancy at all. For licences it is generally recommend to use weekly periodic agreements to make it easier to get rid of co-habitees who the Landlord ends up not rubbing along with. Basically if you grant the licence on an initial fixed term and payment period of a week then you are contractually bound and can have complications and longer notice periods.

Notice procedure.

If a weekly licence is granted then a simple letter stating all the necessary detail and dates and giving a week’s notice is all that is required and no Court Order is needed to evict either. If it is a Common Law tenancy (Landlord living in same property and tenant having exclusive accommodation again like the flat example above) then a normal Notice to Quit is used giving a month’s notice. As far as tenant or occupier protection and rights are concerned all occupiers who are licensees or tenants are covered by the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 (PFE) except those living with a resident landlord, where a Court Order is not needed. Hence the weekly licence.

Check PFE status.

If they do because they are a tenant then you will have acted illegally if you evicted them only with a letter giving them a week and then entered their room and put their belongings out on the street. You can do this if they are a licensee and don’t leave at the end of the week’s notice – but you cannot if their status gives them PFE protection meaning you should have given them longer notice (minimum one month) and obtained a Court Order

Link to Res LL Part 1

07Mar 2011

Rental issues: Avoiding Rental Voids can be a problem.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The Tenant deposit scheme has on the whole been well received and there is no doubt that it has done exactly what it was meant to do when introduced. Namely, to ensure Tenants and Landlords communicate and negotiate with each other over dilapidations. It has however had other effects which were not foreseen and when Tenants do not act in a reasonable manner, causing a dispute and creating a situation which can add further problems when the next Tenant is due to move in for example, the next day.

New Tenants expect the best.

When any Tenant moves in, they do not expect to be faced with a situation where damage to the carpets, decoration or appliance for example, has to be left until such time as proper negotiations have been undertaken with the leaving Tenant over where responsibility for carrying out repairs should lie! It is not a new problem, but prior to the scheme, we could make an experienced judgement over who created and therefore who should pay for the issue to hand. Now we can no longer do this and according to the TDS procedure, must even take time to gather estimates before getting agreement and starting the work.

Why not avoid the situation.

Avoidance would be the easiest solution, always ensure a week between Tenants, but the reason so many Tenants follow hot on the heels of the last occupier is at the new Tenants request. Most Landlords can see the potential issue and rather than risk upsetting the new Tenant, will agree that a void period has to be accepted between Tenants. Of course as Agents, especially those carrying out the viewings, the ability to change Tenants without any void is difficult to avoid, after all, we are doing the best we can by our Landlords and when the new Tenant states they have to be in sooner rather than later it is difficult to risk them going elsewhere by saying no!

Best advice and best practise.

So our advice to avoid the complaint from the new Tenant, which is bound to happen no matter that it was they who HAD to be in the property without delay, when they move in to find the cooker door glass broken, has to be to always build that extra week to the availability date and even though void periods are created by this practise and it goes against our intentions as Letting Agents, it is better to avoid problems for new occupants and give their Tenancy the start we would all wish for.

25Feb 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management and Letting Agents. (Part 1)

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Henley Grange Halesowen.

Over the years of running a Letting Agency, several different opportunities come to light and most Agencies do at some stage along the way, get the opportunity to advice or run a Block Management Company. This is exactly what happened to my Company and we now look after a total of 14 sites throughout the Franchise area of Staffordshire.

Block Management explained.

For those in the know, this is well understood, but if you have never had anything to do with what are mainly leasehold properties, or lived in a location where there are shared facilities, it may not be so obvious, so let me explain: In simplistic terms, Block Management Companies are set up to oversee the running of Leasehold properties such as apartment blocks (nowadays nearly always with Freehold properties attached, because of Planning authorities insisting on new sites having a cross section of affordable as well as ‘Executive’ type housing) appointing and therefore paying for such services as Cleaners and Gardeners, organising insurance cover and also giving a platform for all who live within the site to comment or even assist in the day to day running by standing as a site Director. Companies such as ours carry out the collecting and payment of services rendered and stands as Company Secretary to carry out the formal running of the site in line with any and all legal requirements and are appointed by the Directors.

Why Letting Agents?

What normally happens is one of our Landlords will get frustrated at the lack of contact or accountability of the existing Managing agent (Professional appointed body) and ask if we can assist. This is how we started and all of our business has come about through recommendation since that first site in 2003. This is because as Companies, Letting Agents are set up to operate in a very similar way and of course we can soon adjust our services to take Block Management on board.

Training and Professional standing.

Within Castle Estates, we offer training for all of our offices whenever opportunity presents itself, this is to ensure that the training is given when it is needed and therefore better utilised by the offices and the customer of course benefits as well from up to date information. Our professional bodies also recognise the services we give as Block Management Agents but there is a separate body ARMA Association of Residential Managing Agents (as opposed to ARLA) which it is wise to apply to join when numbers of sites increase. In our case, when we developed to the stage of having a separate division within the Company, just for Block Management.

So what advantages to the customer.

The normal reason and this I am sure is countrywide, is lack of approachability and poor communication that results in  a lack of trust, but of course the disillusioned owners and directors nearly always look to their own locality for a solution. And this is exactly why so many Letting Agents come to look after so many local sites. This is exactly what we can offer, accountability and easy simple approachability and communication. OK there are people who do not communicate well no matter where they are located, so I guess that is my hint to anybody taking over a local site because of problems with the existing agents – communicate with your new customers. We do and have shown considerable growth because of it!

21Feb 2011

Current Property News: Good practise stops Fake Agents operating!

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A report in the press at the weekend, has stated that Tenants should look out for fake ‘agents’ operating through the web, as false sites have been set up to mimic the way in which the sites for genuine registered agents appear, even including the logos and details of the industry approved bodies such as ARLA. As a professional member of ARLAjust as a Letting Agent, I always look at articles like this and compare what would happen to anybody visiting my agency, Castle Estates.

Good practise

I am pleased to confirm that our good practises would ensure that this could never happen with us. Meaning, that by ensuring good practises are always offered to our clients, they should be the wiser as well. Of course the only way good practises can be widely known, is to respond to such articles by advertising them, that way, hopefully, more people will be better informed in the future, ensuring they do not get caught out in this manner. So what we would always ensure is:

Deposit at the start of the Tenancy.

Any deposit is refundable under law, if the subject for the deposit is not purchased, entered in too or commenced. Therefore, there is no way that any Deposit should be taken until the day that the Tenancy commences. This will ensure at a stroke that no monies are lost through paying for a property which does not exist. This is because the contract does not actually exist until it is signed and Tenants under most circumstances, should sign at the property, on the day of the start of the Tenancy, when keys are released and monies become due (Rent)

No viewing – No fees accepted.

It has long been a golden rule within our Company that no Tenant is allowed to pay the initial Referencing and Documentation fee, without first viewing the property in person. This was introduced to ensure that our Landlords were not left with a tenant that we had not seen (Difficult to justify ensuring Tenants sourced through us are acceptable without meeting them first) either pulling out when they do see the property because it was not as expected, or ending up being a poor Tenant and not respecting the agreement. There have been occasions where the reason behind the request has been genuine, but that is where relatives or Company representatives can carry out the role and give us a situation we can work with. Not forgetting that all applications would be referenced as well.

Simple principals, Best outcome.

So our advice to avoid disappointment, as the saying goes, is to follow these simple rules, then Tenants will not fall fowl of criminal activities of this nature. Of course it is once again professionalism and education that will ensure such matters are well known by all. I say once again, because nearly every scenario where our industry is either poorly represented or open to corruption such as these false agents operating on the web, would be answered by professional standards and registration of agents. This will provide the insurance and education that our customers, as either Tenants or Landlords, need as they will know what to ask for and expect when renting property. Of course, traditional methods of visiting the Companies premises and or viewing in person take care of the problem in one fell swoop, which is why I still feel that we are some way from an industry which is solely represented by web presence alone!

17Feb 2011

Property Landlord advice: Data protection and Letting Agents.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have been amazed to see a report lately that very few Letting Agencies and indeed Estate Agencies are registered with the Data Protection Act. As a member of an organisation that has included registration as part of its new Franchisee set up system, I am amazed to find out that this is the case.

Implications.

So how does that affect you if you are a Landlord in such circumstances? Well hopefully not at all, although situations could arise, such as passing information on when an agent is appointed incorrectly, but this is the business of your agent to ensure that they are registered as a handler of personal information on their clients, both Landlord and Tenant. Of course registration alone does not stop anybody from being prosecuted!

Nobody told me!

It is how Agents could have managed NOT to know that they should be registered that amazes me! There have been scams where claims have been made to be the Data protection agency writing and asking for fees from all manner of organisations (although I now wonder if they only wrote to Companies that were registered!) as well of information direct from the agency and Government bodies that regularly arrives on my desk. How do Companies avoid all of this? Unless of course ignorance has been by design!

No action taken?

Perhaps it is because I am a sceptic and of course have witnessed and seen for myself that it is only the open and honest amongst us that join in by registering in the first place, but is this another case of no action being taken to ascertain who has not registered? Because the Data Protection Act was introduced in 1998 and the sceptic in me has to consider the implications of action only just being taken to pursue those who have failed to register!

Recent legislation promises.

I have recently reported through these pages, in a blog about legislation on the 8th of February, where the Government stated that sufficient legislation existed for the Councils to take action against rogue Landlords. The problem being they are too understaffed to do so, as I have been advised myself by representatives from my own Council, so is this the evidence of how long an act has to be time served before action is finally taken, thirteen years!!

Conclusion.

So sceptic that I am, I trust I am incorrect in my assumption, time will tell! But as a Landlord, this is just one more job than I am surprised most be carried out when checking the professionalism of your chosen agent (No apologies for the use of the prof word again!) when surely a simple registration which would have to include such requirements would clarify the issue for all concerned, or is that just me going on again!