A national law firm has added its weight to calls for the regulation of letting agents – after a landlord client was left high and dry by an agent that went off with the rent money.
Goldsmith Williams, which has a business GW Let that advises private landlords, said that Parliament should compel all letting agents to sign up to an ombudsman scheme.
Eddie Goldsmith, senior partner at the firm, said: “Our experience in recent matters shows just how much landlords would benefit from regulation and such a redress scheme.
“Amateur landlords particularly often put their trust in letting agents to manage their property for them. We’ve recently acted for one such landlord who contracted a letting agent to source tenants for their property portfolio and collect the rental payments.
“The letting agent disappeared with a number of months of payments. The landlord was not only left out of pocket but also with disaffected tenants. And to recover the lost rents we had to take out a judgement against the letting agent – and, of course, this took some time.
“In another recent case our client was not local to their rental property and so contracted with a letting agent to manage the property on their behalf.
“Unbeknown to them the tenant had complained about the state of the property. When these complaints were not addressed the tenant fell out with the letting agent. Again our client, the landlord, was left picking up the pieces in their relationship with the tenant whilst taking legal action against the letting agent.
“These are just two examples – showing that regulation of the lettings industry is long overdue. That’s why we’re adding our voice to those clamouring for this change to the law.”
.png)
Comments
@Raj, I would suggest that you refrain from tarring agents with the same brush of your own bitter experience by coming out with gems like "most of these letting Agents are trying to line their own pockets". Most agents are regulated and are, like most people, trying to earn an honest living.
I totally agree with the argument put over by @A Failure of Governance - these stories reflect the jockeying for position by the so-called regulatory bodies in order to come out on top in the race to legislate the PRS. Nuff said.
@raj
You've rang this particular bell on many occasions on this forum; have you actually followed ANY of the advice you were offered?
I fail to appreciate why agents are now being blamed by Landlords for not advising them of repairs and defaults in rent. My major problem is my Landlords refusing top do repairs when asked along with no instruction when advising them to take action against non payment. Let's sit a bit longer to save me legal fees is the most common excuse. If our rents are not paid to Landlords within 5 working days they are ontop of us like "a ton of bricks". Yet more rhetoric about the bad old letting agents.
@Raj, from my experience, in today's market if a property does not let it is in a poor location or condition and the fact your agents could only get an anti-socia,l evicted, DSS tenant maybe reflects this. I am also disappointed you feel it is appropriate in a forum to throw in the "Racist Card" I have many clients of many cultures without any issues arising.
Hi,
If the letting agent does not comply with the written agreement, then could the Trading Standards take them to task please?
Has anyone taken the matter to the Trading Standards for redress please? My Letting Agents are Racist as well. I am an Indian.
No wonder most Indians manage their own properties.
Hi,
I agree with the Law Firm that most of these Letting Agents are trying to line their own pockets than to care for the Landlords. I had a registered Letting Agent boasting of so many memberships and they were not working hard for me to let my empty property. When I wanted take the portfolio off from their hands, they became nasty and joined hands with other Agent who was not registered and both of them found a most troubled Tenant that have evicted by the previous landlords. This new unregistered Agent gave me very scanty information about this tenant and when I asked to see his application, It was refused on the basis of data Protection act. I asked to see the credit check report, the same story. In short, the letting agent just shoved in the tenant into my property against my wishes.
Now, my old registered Letting Agent after serving me well over five years took vengence against me for taking the portfolio off his hands and colluded with this new Agent to teach me a lesson. What could we the landlords can do under such circumstances as it is the Letting Agent who pays the Ombudsman and not we?
A much orchestrated series of stories on LAT all with the same subject almost the same wording? This is most definitely being organised by those who hope to benefit financially from regulation, licensing and compulsory membership of A redress scheme.
Here we have a National firm of solicitors adding weight to the call for licensing yet they can only manage two citable cases, in both cases their client found redress through the current system of Torts.
Two cases nationally in what time frame? Without stating if in fact the firms were already professional firms regulated by NAEA, NALS ARLA or RICS or fly by night firms registered only with a TPO membership. Surely such weak hearsay evidence would be inadmissible in a court so how come yet again we subjected to another dose of watery propaganda for those that would regulate us to digest?
I am not against a single body with a single set of rules and a redress scheme to sticky plaster the mess when the system fails but with so many fingers commercially interested in regulating the interested it is going to be impossible to provide meaningful regulation.
This clamour for regulation is a new phenomena, all the in fighting, the break away movements yada yadda yadda are in fact an indication that the existing, multiple, regulators are failing to regulate. It seems sensible to me that rather than suggesting that it is the Agents that are at fault and compulsory regulation, licensing and membership of a redress scheme forcing revenues into said organisation will heal all the wrongs we are committing, someone ought to sit down and write down where the actual source of the problems lie.
I have been through the exercise; If I am the best I can be and qualified up to the hilt, I am RICS or ARLA registered, next comes NALS and NAEA then if I fail acceptance to any of the above I can set up shop register with TPO and away I go, quickly realising that a SAFEagent Sticker in the window is great for consumer confidence I join NAEA or NALS
Now effectively regulated and licensed I am free to do what the Dickens I like. The regulator bodies won't stop me from falling out with Tenants as the case quoted suggests and it won't prevent me running off with the rent account or insured deposits it will simply at a cost of a for profit insurance scheme allow the wronged party to get redress without the hassle of legal action. That licensing redress scheme isn't improving standards it is allowing unfit persons to act in an agency capacity.
There needs to be a top down review (Government downwards) of the whole industry to assess what the problems are and what is behind them, only then is it possible to suggest the sort of regulation that is required and which one body will responsible for training and policing the regulation. Whatever happens their can not continue be 7+ commercial agendas all attempting to cover costs or profit from regulation.
Quite frankly I am surprised that yet another Professional l has seen fit/ been coerced to submit a story supporting regulation without realising that to do so without a solid and water tight case and a full understanding I of both sides of this discussion they are just bringing their firm’s name into question.