ARLA managing director Ian Potter has written to members about its stance towards Shelter – which, he says, is planning further campaigning work against letting agents’ practices.
In his explanation, Potter says that he is unable to speak about many of the meetings he has with the likes of Shelter and the Government, because of Chatham House, or 'off the record' rules.
Potter said that ARLA has received ‘many concerned enquiries’ about the organisation’s relationship with Shelter, which is campaigning against letting agents charging fees to tenants. In Scotland, it has succeeded in having the law explicitly tightened to ban them.
Potter says that ARLA had ‘robustly’ argued that tenants could and should be made to pay for some of the benefits and services supplied to them. However, he said the outcome of the consultation by the Scottish government “was not favourable to our members”.
He says the situation is different in the rest of the UK, where any change to fees would require primary legislation.
Potter goes on to say that like ARLA, Shelter believes the Government should regulate the private rented sector.
He says Shelter and ARLA do meet together regularly at various events, and this year will have met nearly 20 times. He also says that Shelter regularly gives ARLA sight of embargoed press releases, giving them time to comment.
On the subject of agents’ fees, Potter says that when given the opportunity, ARLA never fails to remind stakeholders, including Shelter, that customer service and consumer protection do not come free.
He urges all agents to ensure that landlords and tenants are aware of what they charge.
Potter says that ARLA will continue meeting various stakeholders, including Shelter, Crisis, the Labour Party, Lib Dems, Greens, different MPs, and the Government’s Communities and Local Government department.
But he says that most of the time he cannot report to his members on these meetings, because ‘many’ are held under Chatham House rules.
* Chatham House rules are where the meeting participants agree to confidentiality: they can use the information gleaned from the meeting, but not attribute it or identify other participants with their views, maintaining anonymity. Chatham House rules, often misunderstood, are not there to preserve secrecy and they should not be invoked to make sure the conversations themselves are confidential.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
Comments
ARLA did absolutely nothing to protect Letting Agents in Scotland.
When the Scottish Government announced the outcome of the Consultation on fees, ARLA made no comment nor did they include this article on the "news" section of their website.
I think regulation of Letting Agents is unwelcome but is likely to happen and the two bodies most likely to gain out if regulation are ARLA and RICS.
In my opinon neither of these two bodies have covered themself with glory in the last few years.
Well, for a start he is misusing the term:
"The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.
"Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted 'on the record' with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker's request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held 'off the record'."
They are just "Off The Record".
The question has to be why? Why off the record?
Because they have had there arses handed to them.
That's why. And they know it.
Shelter have won in Scotland.
I'm not sure if there are laws that exist at the moment in England & Wales - but I bet you there is an obscure clause in some consumer protection legislation somewhere that could be turned to it.
The question for estate agents is "Why are you charging tenants anyway?".
Yes holding deposit (refundable if the landlord pulls out, but forfeit if they withdraw or fail fair references) - but this goes to the overall rent and deposit when they move in.
Yes reference fee - why should the landlord pay for a tenant to prove how good they are (or not)?
But surely, that should be it.
Otherwise there is a conflict of interest in terms of "knowing your client" because both are paying you to do the same job.
Ethics 101 surely.
So Ian Potter writes:
"Dear ARLA Members
I have been having very important meetings about very important matters at a top level but I am not going to tell you about these things because I too am very important."
Who pays this man?
"Potter goes on to say that like ARLA, Shelter believes the Government should regulate the private rented sector"
Why. What is ARLA supposed to be? They should be vigourously promoting themselves and the rules under which their members operate. It would seem that ARLA are much too 'cosy' with government departments.