On Friday, 14 June 2019 16:49:19 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:


Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.

Other people's experiences differ.

What predatory practices are currently a problem in your opinion?


And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.

There's a secondary effect on supply, but the point of the reforms is to
control the existing market.

so it does not put more properties on the market. Controls always move properties off the market, making the housing problem deeper.


Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.

Tenants' income doesn't increase due to market forces. Them becoming
homeless because of such market forces is something society seems to view as
a bad thing.

though that isn't the point

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession
to sell or live in the property).

to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.

No idea, but I suspect this would create a loophole unless carefully
controlled (a slumlord might have a tame family member they urgently need to
house every time they want to evict).

I also don't expect they provided for this. So the landlord's brother/sister/etc goes homeless instead of the tenant just renting another house. Not really a plus.

As for slumlords, I've not seen slums in a long time here.

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into
the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.

The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have
a choice in which agency to use.

No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.

But supply is limited, and no property is identical to another property.

so they have a slice of the market to choose from, not just one place

This is what has resulted in agency fees
to tenants skyrocketing.

it isn't

Tell me: can I search Rightmove for a rental including fees? Can I sort
properties by price including fees, picking the one with the lowest total
cost?

The answer is no, because fees are numerous and opaque. Holding fee,
credit check fee for each tenant, a fee for drawing up the contract, fee for
a guarantor, fee for checking the inventory at the beginning, checkout fee.

Right move's sorting algorithm is purely a matter between Rightmove & its customers. Ebay have tackled this problem, it can will sort by price + p&p.

Often the fees are unjustifiable: why does it cost hundreds of pounds for a
credit check and photocopying a contract?

I absolutely agree. However the only thing that counts is the total cost, both to tenant and landlord.


Hyperinflation in fees is an obvious sign of market failure.

It's an obvious sign that some people think they can ask more from tenants. This sort of thing happens all the time in retail. And sooner or later customers revolt and say no, we're not paying that, we'll rent somewhere else, then landlords realise their agent is not a good choice and market forces sort it. It's business as normal.


NT