On Jan 22, 10:54*am, Lobster wrote:
On 22/01/2012 02:19, Wesley wrote:



*wrote in message
....
On Jan 21, 4:42 pm, *wrote:
On 21/01/2012 00:33, Phian wrote:

*wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:24:22 -0000
.uk *wrote:

What certificates must a landlord provide a tenant with please. ?
I suggest joining the National Landlords Association. They can provide
you with enough information to make you reconsider property letting.
I use a letting agent and he sees to all that sort of thing, the cost is
well worth the lack of hassle. A friend rented his house to someone and
had
no end of trouble, the tenant even tried to get him to co-operate in
some
kind of benefits fraud.

Well YMMV but personally I think agents are hugely expensive for what
they do; plus, as the whole area is unregulated your chances of finding
a bad one are extremely high. By far the single biggest feature of
successful landlording is in selection and vetting of decent tenants,
which I do personally, and I really get very little hassle from my
tenants (he says, having just been called out to look at a boiler - see
other thread! - but that's the first time in ages).

The other occasion when I'd go with using an agent would be when you
live a long way from the let property.

And truth be told, for a first-time landlord it's probably worth using a
*good* agent (and ARLA affiliated) as there's a fair amount to take on
board at the outset.

David

I'd say if you're new, don't use an agent. Agents don't generally look
after your basic interests, and do routinely rip landlords off. DIYing
it will be a steep learning curve, but at least you'll learn.

What kind of prices do these agents charge and what do you get for your
money?

Well broadly you can split their offering into "Letting only" (where
they will advertise for and find a tenant, then prepare all the
paperwork; but from then on the landlord's on his own); and "Letting and
Management", where, once the property is let the agent remains the point
of contact for the tenant and deals with any issues arising, subject to
an agreed cost above which the agent seeks approval.

I'm not very up on costs but typically I'd guess "Letting only" would
probably lose you your first months' rent, and "letting plus management"
you'd get an initial startup fee of a couple of hundred, and then an
ongoing commission of 10% of the rent + VAT?

They also charge the tenants substantial admin fees which I find
particularly nefarious; also they clobber you (and the tenant) for
renewal fees every 6 or 12 months, but don't tell you that it's actually
completely unneccessary to do so, as the original Assured Shorthold
Tenancy contract remains in force indefinitely. What else... oh, unless
they are members of an umbrella organisation like ARLA (they don't need
to be, and the vast majority aren't) then if they are holding the
tenant's deposit and/or rent money of yours which they've collected and
haven't forwarded) and then go bust or AWOL, then you (and not the
tenant) lose it. *I'm not an agent fan, you'll gather!

David

Another way a lot make income is by overcharging on repairs, and
playing 'we knocked but you didnt answer, thats another £50' games.


NT