Agents should be fined up to £30,000 if they flout the impending ban on letting fees charged to tenants.
The call has come from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health which has made public its submission to the Government’s consultation on the ban.
The organisation has also called for holding deposits to be included in the ban – the consultation had proposed that these be exempt.
However, the CIEH said holding deposits also pose an additional barrier for tenants wishing to move home as they increase the amount of money needed to secure a new tenancy.
If holding deposits are permitted, the CIEH says they should be registered under a mandatory Client Money Protection compensation scheme to avoid abuse. In addition, the CIEH says that agents should not be allowed to hold more than one tenant’s holding deposit per property, and that the deposit itself should be capped at 1.5 months’ rent.
The CIEH also said that the legal requirement for letting agents to display their fees is not working. It said not all agents are complying, and there is lack of enforcement.
CIEH policy manager Tamara Sandoul said: “The private rented sector is such an important part of the housing market, providing homes for people who otherwise cannot afford to buy their own, especially the vulnerable and those on low incomes.
“While the vast majority of letting agents are responsible, there are those who exploit tenants by charging them extortionately high fees.
“A comprehensive ban on letting agents’ fees is a very positive step forward. It will give tenants greater freedom to move out of properties that are hazardous and in poor condition, which in-turn should drive up standards and quality of rented housing.
“We do not expect to see higher rents because of the ban as the cost of referencing new tenants is likely to be small in comparison to the costs of maintaining a property to a good standard.
“At the moment, managing agents are charging both the landlord and the tenant fees, but this ban should help to increase competition between letting agents and help to drive the total costs down.”
The suggested fine of up to £30,000 would be in line with the civil penalty for agents who commit a banning order offence and would, the CIEH said, ensure that the biggest agents have a “strong incentive to comply fully with the new ban”.
However, it went on to say that the largest agents should also face the possibility of corporate responsibility and the disqualification of directors at senior level in cases of multiple offences.
The CIEH also called for a national register of letting agents and landlords.
Eh? Shouldn’t they just be doing a better job enforcing improvements on unscrupulous landlords? What the hell have agent fees got to do with it?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Totally agree! What a clown…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Which government would that be then ?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What is this nonsense? What experience or qualification has Mx Sandoul got to make such a public call?
It seems to me we have an establishment where title and position provides an unquestionable authority to speak on any subject.
If this was a reply to the interview question “what do you about the PRS?” for the position of trainee on the support desk of a software firm the candidate would be leaving before the morning coffee break.
I know, I know ; strident, outspoken again but on this subject I really do know what I’m talking about.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have never heard such rubbish, this is an article based on absolute garbage!
Lets have some perspective hear, agents can’t charge anything and landlords have to absorb all the cost for everything. It all seems to be a little bias to me and grossly in favor of the tenant, why? According to the muppet who penned this article the ban is supposed to improve the whole renting experience, improve competition between agents, improve the quality of housing stock and make the world a better place! Rubbish; what planet are these people on.
Here’s an idea (and totally fair and reasonable) according to our great government!
1. You’re late with your tax return and you receive a £100 penalty, OK seems reasonable to me then why not apply the same charge to a tenants late rent and then a daily charge of £10.00 for the overdue rent. It must be fair HMRC do it and lets be honest at least the £100 charge is commensurate with the agents leg work chasing the rent unlike HMRC’s.
2. Quality housing stock is dependent on an inflow of cash from the tenant in order that the property can be maintained to the standard required, although sometimes the rent isn’t always forthcoming due to a myriad of reasons, for example “oh really sorry my wages haven’t landed or I’ve lost my job”. Crazy really, all of a sudden the tenants problem has just became the agents and the landlords, seem a bit of a paradox really! Ok, lets be fair. As a condition of any tenancy agreement it should be mandated that the tenant and his co-tenants should have income protection insurance and tenant’s liability insurance, this will cover the rent and should the tenant damage the property and the cost are in excess of his/her deposit then happy days he/she is covered.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Item 2: God for bid, tenants would have to pay money out! Good idea though if you can find an insurer that won’t charge more than a deposit, even better provide cover for free. She should try it on insurance companies and see the response, Tamara needs to go and get an education in business studies? Oh no, university fees. Blimey every which way you look they have to pay, unless its to a letting agent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just nuts.
Why not push for them not having to pay income tax. Seems the one idea left out for the poor tenant.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Will the welcome news of Barwells sacking by the people have any influence on these ill thought out policies??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register