Letting agent possibly pulling a fast one over rent increase?

I was merely making observations on what seemed to me at worst like mathematical probabliltites and at best certainties - no VAT involved as figures too simple.

We'll have to disagree over the Duty of Care it is almost a matter of semantics. Yes of course the LL and A are one and the same at Law, but only for A purposes in terms of duites specifically discharged for tyhe landlord. In all other respects there is no actual Duty of Care for the tenant, onl;y when directly acting for the Landlord.

@ Don Holmes - Perhaps you ought to re-read my comment. You might then understand that I wasn`t actually against the agent. I was advising about some of the tactics used by agents. It was not a naive comment at all & I never said it was illegal. An agent has a duty of care to the Landlord & if they are going to advertise the Landlords property at a higher price then they should agree this with the Landlord first, explaining the pros & cons, this was not done. The reason being - advertising the property at £360 could potentially lose tenants who would be looking for something under that price mark. If I was a tenant & could only afford £330 pcm, I would not start looking at properties priced at £360 pcm. Therefore, it could be perceived that the agent may not be acting in the landlords best interest. I stand by my comment!!!

Emma

If it helps I have to agree with Don Holmes. It may seem odd that an agent should consult before trying to make a fortune for the Landlord (well, trying for an extra £30 anyway!!).

The real issue here is what did the agent achieve and why are you getting the siums you are - or not but should be.

On Right Move and most portals it probably would not make any difference as their rents are banded so anyone looking above £300 would see all up to £400 but it is a fair comment

It`s not a question of whether the properties would show on the portals - it`s whether a prospective tenant would bother to book a viewing, thinking that the rent is higher than it actually is. No viewing = no tenant. It only needs to take an extra couplke of weeks to find a tenant & the tactic has then backfired!
I was simply trying to give some diplomatic advise - if you look at my original comment, it was a light hearted dig, but I guess some people just instantly go on the defensive & take everything as a personal criticism - it wasn`t!

@Emma

My final comment on this thread.

I doubt £30 would put tenants off unless they simply could not afford more and/or there was heavy market demand for property type/location/rent level and they knew they'd be wasting their time asking if you'd take a lower rent - which the agent would probably refuse also without consulting you!!

I let friends and family properties and where it is noticeable is if they want say £625 and are prepared to take £600 but it is in the higher band so tenants looking to £600 don't see it. Then I would agree and it makes a difference.

But in my experience past 5 years and in a heavy demand area down here and with flats ideal for motorways, buses, trains and even an airport I still get tenants wanting £30 to £50 off.

No they absolutely can`t do that!!! You should be 100% aware of what rent is being charged on your behalf and their % charged accordingly.
10% is quite high in any case and I would suggest you shop around. If you are in London there is a lot of competition so you are in a stronger negotiating position but out of London should be cheaper anyway. Not sure if you figures are per week or per month. If you are in London I have just started using this agent...really reasonable fees and on the ball http://www.thamespropertymanagement.com (5-7.5%!!)
If you are out of London shop around. Good luck IvyEllen

Hi Ivy

I've had a look at the Thames Property Management website and there is nothing obvious on there to suggest the company have any Client Money Protection or Professional Indemnity. They don't appear to be members of any of the recognised professional bodies such as ARLA, NALS, RICS, SafeAgent either. As I'm sure you will appreciate, you can not pass on your legal responsibilities as a landlord to an agent. For example, if the agent fails to protect a deposit you pay the fine. If the agent disappears with money you stand the losses. One way that agents reduce their costs is to cut corners on buying the insurances necessary to protect their clients from these risks. Now I'm not saying that's the case with this agent but please do check it out so that you can put your mind at rest or at least make a commercial decision on any potential risks.

Hi Mark

Thanks for your comments...I will check with them and see what they say. I`ll let you know outcome
IvyEllen

Thanks Ivy, it's these little things that catch landlords out. I have carried far too many sob stories on this website about the effects of letting agents not doing things properly. The sooner that these insurance become compulsory to have by law the better in my opinion. There are lots of laws to protect tenants (e.g. Gas safety checks, deposit protection etc.) but no laws whatsoever to ensure that when a landlord appoints a letting agent to manage a property which enables landlords to claim redress if an agent fails in their contractual obligations. I would like it to become the law that all letting agents must have Client Money Protection and Professional Indemnity Insurance as an absolute minimum criteria to be allowed to trade and for it to be a criminal offence to trade without these insurance. A bit like it's a criminal offence to drive a car without insurance if you like.

Good luck, hopefully they will have the insurance and just haven't got around to saying so on their website.