No evidence for Diane Abbott’s claim of landlords demanding ‘pay-to-view’

To quote 118 :

"The only evidence that Property118 could find was one platform for agents offering to arrange viewings at £30 each – to ‘guarantee’ a viewing. The platform is no longer available.

And in 2018, a BBC investigation found that a London letting agent was charging £300 per viewing."

Of course these are scams as charging of fees is illegal, but 118 cannot quote evidence and then claim that there is "no evidence". Even one example is "evidence".

And we get the usual rightwing abuse of Abbot in the comments. Perhaps Diane could be accused of embellishment, but that is what politcians do.

Reply to the comment left by Smartermind at 13/04/2023 - 09:39
Use this comment as a ‘thumbs down’

Reply to the comment left by Gennie Nash at 12/04/2023 - 14:50Gennie Nash, the £30 fee is emphatically not permitted. The Tenant Fees Act 2019 outlaws charging prospective tenants to view.
Under s3 of the 2019 Act "a payment is a prohibited payment unless it is a permitted payment by virtue of Schedule 1." In other words it is unlawful unless expressly authorised. See my article here.
The landlord or agent can be penalised up to £5000 for a first offence and receive a criminal penalty of up to £30,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

Reply to the comment left by Smartermind at 13/04/2023 - 09:39Please present your contrary evidence that such fees are being charged. It is impossible to prove a negative but saying there are one or two cases is hardly newsworthy. There are tenants who are out and out crooks who lie to and cheat their landlords but no reasonable person would seek to generalise and tar all tenants with the same brush. Diane Abbott is s**t-stirring and we all know it.
As my reply to Gennie Nash points out there are already hefty penalties for charging for viewings. New legislation is not required.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/04/2023 - 11:20
I think I worded that badly, what I'm trying to say is that they are just random people who 90% of the time are not ever going to be prospective tenants never mind an actual tenant, and as such we should impose 'fines' for time wasters! I am running a business and my time is valuable (to me at least) and I honestly think as LLs we should have better representation like maybe our own 'Shelter' to help us regain a foothold of our businesses! We should all be up in arms at some of the outrageous things we have to put up with these days, but we literally just suck it up and accept it with no organisation to say 'no, that's not reasonable'. Everything is so skewed it is astounding! I still think my suggestion is a brilliant idea and would at least make people think before not turning up to a viewing.

Reply to the comment left by Gennie Nash at 13/04/2023 - 12:13Gennie, your "brilliance" will get you into trouble. If a tenant did pay the £30 but not turn up and you kept the £30, the tenant could turn round and report you to the Council or in the first instance "invite" you to repay the £30 and perhaps add something on top to avoid the agro of defending a claim for £5000.
I sympathise with you. We have had our fair share of no-shows in the past. Now we always text in the morning before a viewing and if the tenant does not text back to confirm then we don't attend the viewing. Our success rate is very high.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/04/2023 - 12:31
Oh good lord! What is wrong with you? No one is going to make up their own legislation here! It’s AN IDEA that I STILL think is a good one. And, I can be fairly confident if someone was able to be paid for their wasted time, they would probably be very happy! With regards to contacting the viewers prior, I’m surprised you obviously think I hadn’t thought of that! I am talking about ‘no shows’. This is why we need our own organization to listen to our problems and actually try to help. A group of likeminded people with the backbone and power of Shelter!

Reply to the comment left by Gennie Nash at 13/04/2023 - 13:44
I am sorry if I have struck a nerve but this board is read by landlords of different levels of knowledge and experience who may act upon advice given. When you write: "But they're NOT tenants, are they? So in fact it [i.e. charging a fee] IS permitted!" there is nothing wrong with me in pointing out that such fees are not permitted. If a course of action can lead to a substantial fine, well it's not a good idea, IMHO.

I wish the law were different and if you read the article I linked to you will see the contempt in which I hold the Tenant Fees Act and the Government that passed it.

I have no particular view on your arranging viewings and no offence was intended. I was trying to be helpful by passing on our experience as I know some landlords do not re-confirm viewings.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 13/04/2023 - 10:16
I merely stated facts as quoted by the 118 article. So everyone who thumbs up your comment despises facts.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/04/2023 - 11:26
I already quoted from the 118 article itself the evidence you seek.

I did not say I agree that a change in the law is required.