The Association of Residential Letting Agents yesterday issued new warnings to would-be tenants to be on alert for rogue letting agents – and to beware of logos which could be fake or mean very little as to the agent’s professional credentials.
Ian Potter, managing director of ARLA, said: “Unfortunately, there are many horror stories of rogue lettings agents, as the rental sector is unregulated. This means anyone can set up shop as an agent, or become a landlord.”
He said warning signs of bad practice can include landlords offering property for much less than market rents, or advertising properties with no deposit to pay. Others may ask for deposits to be paid before the tenant has visited the property, supposedly in order to seal the deal.
ARLA also warned: “The internet and online forums can be a hotspot for unscrupulous agents as there is very little regulation about who can post adverts online. And the global nature of the internet means individuals living in or outside of the UK can easily advertise for properties to rent in the UK. Some will be legitimate, but not all.”
ARLA is advising prospective tenants to be wary of agents who refuse full viewing and inspection of the property. It said: “At best, there may be problems behind the closed doors; at worst they may be showing you around a property that is already being rented to another individual, who may be staying on in that room.”
ARLA also warned tenants to keep an eye out for “non-accredited third party logos or non-accredited third party logos or accreditation being used by agents to look as if they are monitored and adhere to a set code of conduct”.
ARLA said tenants should always check whether agents belong to a professional organisation and have client money protection and offer redress schemes, and be very cautious about using transfer agents to pay money.
Comments
@ Ray comer, ,ok, you win, after reading the rest of the reviews, they are all 1 sided, aged, unsubstantiated complaints, that all involved had nothing better to do of course, obviously. Either way, ARLA firm, ARLA board member - caveat emptor if ever there was
hahahaha, yeah, lots of conclusive evidence in that 1 sided, 3 year old, unsubstantiated complaint.
this company was ran by an ARLA board member at the time!! holier than thou nonsense
http://www.allagents.co.uk/review/35932/
Reality bites...
@ me again
'In reality ARLA are harbouring criminals in the making'.
Really? you really want to make a strong accusation like that on a public forum?
I'm going to leave it here but I really hope it doesn't come back to bite you on the backside.
'ARLA, NALS, SAFEAGENT or whoever, it doesn't matter which one, it doesn't stop an agent being dishonest but it does protect the client if it happens and that is what is important'
Absolutely agree Ray, it protects against dishonest agents, but it's at odds with itself. ARLA can't claim the high ground with an ethos based on ethics when in reality ARLA are harbouring criminals in the making.
Pare it down and they offer Insurance, agents can't indemnify themselves against their own misdeeds so ARLA fills the gap. It's peace of mind for the public but it has the same effect for the accidental crook too. The same agents who you point out 'start off as honest but greed or poor management get the better of them'. They can ease their conscience knowing their clients are covered so they continue on.
An honest agent doesn't require membership but more emphasis should placed on how agents deal with client money. Public awareness, quick response enforcement and stiffer penalties in this area might prove more beneficial.
@ unregulated agent
Of course it implies dishonesty, that was the point of the headline story wasn't it - to help educate tenants how best to protect themselves?.
Good for you that you are honest but if you weren't, and you decided to spend your clients money on a new ferrari and a house in the seychelles, your clients and tenants would get nothing. Another point to remember is that very few people set themselves up as agents with the deliberate intention of being dishonest; most start of as honest but greed or poor management get the better of them and they turn the other way.
Of course we occasionally see regulated agents also doing this, its hardly an indursty secret is it? but the point is their clients get covered for any loss.
ARLA, NALS, SAFEAGENT or whoever, it doesn't matter which one, it doesn't stop an agent being dishonest but it does protect the client if it happens and that is what is important.
If my business fails and I have debt then that debt will be mine alone as I operate strict client accounts and all deposits are registered with DPS.
I do not prop up my business with client money so there will be no need to 'settle' anything as no money will be 'owed' to my landlords and/or tenants. If you're honest, you're honest and you do not require membership.
Your question has implications of dishonesty on the agents part due to the temptation to use client money but this same scenario applies to any regulated agent too. The fact that ARLA covers some of this debt doesn't excuse the fact that the agent has acted illegally in creating it. So by this logic only dishonest agents should join ARLA in order to indemnify their landlord & tenants against their dishonest behaviour?
ARLA - 'Our agents might be dodgy but don't worry, we've got you covered'
I'm convinced that half the people who post on this site only read the first 2-3 lines of a story before furiously attacking the keyboard.
At no point does Ian Potter say that if you are not an ARLA agent then you must be unscrupulous.
He simply warns tenants to be aware of who they are dealing with, and check that if someone is displaying a logo to make sure it is genuine or do actually offer some protection; we have a local landlord who used to advertise themselves as a member of the Guild of Master Craftsmen!!!.
He also suggests that tenants are advised to use agents who belong to a professional organisation - note he didn't say ARLA - and who have CMP and offer redress schemes. I was unregulated for many years and never had CMP or a redress scheme, but 5 years ago I started having more and more landlords and tenants asking about it so I had to change, it doesn't mean I was unscrupulous it just meant I changed with the times and the needs of the people I make my living from.
For all the unregulated agents out there I would ask just one question; if the unthinkable happens and you go out of business with debts, who will settle the money owed to your landlords and/or tenants? It can happen you know, its not just crooked agents who go out of business.
What Ian has said is no different to the holiday industry advising using an ABTA agent, and no one sensible would ignore that advise.
An honest agent doesn't need membership to ARLA or any other organisation.
ARLA et al are a business, the 'purpose' they are there for is to make money and because of this they will always act with prejudice. Remember this is an organisation that treats its own members differently, purely based on fees.
The 'Inner workings' are just as the term suggest, behind closed doors and to believe they are noble requires some transparency.
If you're an honest agent too then the benefits of £5k are moot which means that ARLA are little more than a PR company, and membership amounts to little more than an advertising tool to win business.
Stonehenge - Your comment is noted. However, we VOLUNTARILY entered our lettings side of the business into the property ombudsmans letting redress scheme - in order to do this, the ombudsman stipulate that we have to have insurance in place to cover awards of compensation made by them - we`re covered for a lot more than 5k!!!
Just because we`re not with ARLA does not mean we`re unscrupulous. We have NEVER had a claim or complaint against us to the ombudsman - sort of speaks for itself really!! We have witnessed numerous regulated agents get themselves into hot water.
Just try getting compensation from a non-regulated agent if it all goes belly-up. £5,000 is not a fortune but ARLA members will have cover for up to that amount.
Emma take note!
ARLA is there for a purpose, and is not just some jumped
-up fancy organisation as a lot of you seem to think.
If you actually knew the inner workings of ARLA you might have a different opinion. They are not beyond criticism but they do try their best and should not be dismissed quite so flippantly.
Oh come off it ARLA you assume that prospective tenants should not be left out by themselves to look for property, without the guiding hand of an ARLA agent. However the previous story shows only too well how clued up some tenants are, to the degree that he doesn't pay his rent but is suitably informed in any event to get 3 times his deposit back for a failing on the Landlord/Agent's part. Let's face it there are crooks and vagabonds in every walk of life including some members of ARLA. We just need the brains we were born with sometimes to see through these people/businesses. No amount of accreditation/licensing is going to stop shysters from pulling a fast one wherever they can, we've all met them at some time.
Needless to say ethical-agent they don't mention the S word either (Safeagent).
And I thought I was the only one who hates ARLA. A.R.L.A. are nothing more than a business, a business designed to make money. I'm a member of several organisations but will not join ARLA due to their 'press releases'. This 'press release' is one of the first that i've seen where ARLA doesn't mention the word 'cowboy' as they usually infer that any agent who have not paid their fees (per branch I might add) are cowboys. No landlord that I have met in the last 18 years in this business have ever heard of ARLA unless another ARLA agent has told them about them. No tenant has ever heard of them. There are plenty of ethical, upstanding agents delivering a good level of service to landlords & tenants who are not ARLA members!
I have to admit as an ARLA member working for a large RICS firm it irritates me no end that ARLA seems to consider me a second class member because my firm isn't ARLA "licensed".
What about the letting agents who are regulated by the likes of ARLA & still turn out to be rogue agents who do a bunk with thousands of pounds of landlords & tenats money? No mention of them is there!! It appears that even `ARLA` sometimes manage to end up with a `bad egg`! Of course, this is all hush hush :(
Just because a letting agent isn`t a member of ARLA etc, doesn`t mean they are unscrupulous & unprofessional - far from it. Maybe they just don`t have the word `MUG` written across their forehead.
I could not agree more with the previous comment !!!
This REALLY annoys me. This is not really a "news item" It's pathetic scaremongering in order to boost the commercial brand awareness of one organisation. What about other non-ARLA regulated firms which are in fact regulated? Arguably to a higher and more professional standard.