Renewal fees – same tenants?

Reply to the comment left by at 15/10/2018 - 13:26
But that would be an Unfair term and Not enforceable by the Agent. Just dismiss them with a months notice.
One of the biggest mistakes I see landlords make is re-issue Tenancy agreement ( like they were bloody Tax discs or something ! ) A landlord is in the strongest Position when a tenancy is periodic and in their best interests to achieve this as soon as possible ( In other words, issue a 6 month Fixed term and let tenancy go periodic ) For all the Landlords who say to me, 'I like to know I have a tenant paying the rent for the next 12 months - let alone 2 years ! - the same number ask what to do when the tenant says they want to leave Before the end of the fixed term. Being contractually bound, and actually paying the Rent, are two very different things. and Landlords need to manage Agents who manage their properties. - nuf said.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Shears at 15/10/2018 - 10:56
Unfortunately this is an age old problem to which the answer is:
As a landlord, you are in business, so act accordingly (Like a business person) and "RTFCBS" (Read the Flipping Contract before Signing).
Sorry, if this is not what you want to hear!

You might like to read this very old blog from me from years ago which, as you will see, says that if an important term (and this is!) was hidden away in small print, away from main page AND if you are not what one would deem as a portfolio landlord (in other words you should have known better than not to read the small print), then you could say you were misled - in other words the contract would fall foul of the unfair contract terms protection in consumer law.

http://www.lettingfocus.com/labels/unfair%20letting%20agency%20terms.html

Good luck
David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
Private Rented Sector Advice and Consulting for Landlords

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 15/10/2018 - 21:31Chris
I don't think the contract requiring repeat fees, especially at a lower % than initially falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I am happy to be proved wrong. The agent's argument is that he has been the effective cause of the introduction and those are the commercial terms agreed. It will be even harder for a landlord if he or she is running a business as they are then not a consumer.
Sorry to contradict you, but Danielle and other landlords are far better advised to READ THE SMALL PRINT and negotiate the contract at the outset than to "Just dismiss them with a month's notice" which will probably lead to a CCJ against the landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 16/10/2018 - 10:00
Hi Ian,
Mmm.
Well the case against Foxtons on this, which set the precedent di go to a high court. So fater that much effort, I'd suggest anyone affected reads the judgement carefully.
Was it hidden in small print?
Are you a classed as a consumer (not a professional landlord - which is a little vague). If yes to both, you have a case not to pay fees and tell them whey, referring to this court judgement.

Again, people might like to read this very old blog from me from years ago....
http://www.lettingfocus.com/labels/unfair%20letting%20agency%20terms.html

Good luck
David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
Private Rented Sector Advice and Consulting for Landlords

Reply to the comment left by David Lawrenson at 16/10/2018 - 10:08Hi David
Thank you for reminding us of the Foxtons' case. The trouble for Danielle is that the case established that a repeat fee is not per se unlawful.
As the article you link to says: "Also, each claim would have to be judged in court on a case-by-case basis. And whether you win or not would depend on the nature of the contract and whether you were aware of the full implications of what you were signing."
Let us suppose that Danielle is advised she has a very strong case that the terms are unfair but the agents disagree. They sue her in the County Court. Unless she is legally trained she will have to pay lawyers to defend her. The agent may be able and willing to spend far more on high-powered lawyers than she is. (She is trying to avoid paying £1000 or so. They have at risk many times that if a precedent is set on their standard terms of business.) She will have to show that the terms were not prominent, that she did not in fact know what she was signing and that she is a consumer landlord. She may be able to do so but it all costs time and money for my profession.
Even if she wins, which is never certain in litigation, she will probably be out of pocket.

Thank you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if she had a good case - and she will know if she still has a copy of the contract and can reasonably compare it with what happened in Foxtons - the estate agent would back down and not pursue it.
I would certainly take that tack first.
I have heard from large numbers of people whom I have discussed similar situations with that all the agents, when faced with a challenge from them (and shown the Foxtons case in a formal letter) - have all backed down.
It is just not worth their trouble going to court.
Another thing relevant here is that as its under the small claims level, it would be heard in the small claims track - and in those courts, as I know from experience, the judges do not like big companies coming along with expensive lawyers. I took on Scottish Life in a case and their brief was told in no uncertain terms, to button up.
The judgement in the case of Foxtons is to protect small folk from being bullied in law by big corporates. The case stood. It stands still and it means that ordinary landlords do not have to take nonsense from unfair contracts.
So if they have a case write to the agent's CEO, with a formal letter - they may try and fight back once but will back down I think in the end without going to court!
Even if she lost, the small claims cost will be very small - in my case under £100 I recall. And I only lost on a technicality (out of time, over 6 years).

David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
Landlords Advice

THis was in the guardian letters recently
To solve homelessness sounds easy in practice: give someone a home'.

You are missing a big part of the equation. As someone who has worked with homeless people unfortunately giving someone a home does not solve the underlying problems that usually are also linked to homelessness: alcohol and drug addiction, mental health issues, poor basic skills/education, a history of offending.

When I worked for that homeless charity I saw people being housed whether in private accommodation or hostels, and constantly lose their tenancies because of their behaviour.

So unless all services (health, probation, counselling and education) work together to support these people, they will continue to struggle.

So yes we need to do more to build affordable housing and control rents but you need to see the homelessness issue for what it is: people in crisis in various aspects of their lives.

Reply to the comment left by david porter at 17/10/2018 - 09:25
You said it all David, absolutely.
( Much easier and more votes to be won by blaming the PRS and Landlords though )