ARLA Propertymark to seek exemptions for tenant referencing in Welsh fees ban

ARLA Propertymark is planning to request exemptions in the tenant fees ban in Wales as the Welsh Assembly prepares to follow England and introduce its version of the legislation.

The membership body will today give evidence to the Welsh Assembly on the Renting Homes (Fees etc) (Wales) Bill.

Chief executive David Cox said he accepted the fees ban was inevitable, but was hoping for exemptions such as for referencing.

He said: “First and foremost, from independent economic analysis commissioned by ARLA Propertymark, it is clear that a ban would increase costs for landlords, and deter buy-to-let investors from entering the market.

“Renters would then have those costs passed through to them, and face heightened competition for properties.

“While the ban is inevitable, we will ask the Assembly to consider clauses such as exempting reference checks, to ensure any rent increases to tenants are minimal.

“We will also use the session to call for clarity on the role of portals in displaying information, as well as the provisions contained within the Bill around payments for utilities and the Green Deal.”


Email the story to a friend


  1. Hillofwad71

    This is the “Curates egg ” response from Rebecca Evans to an email on the ban on fees


    “Thank you for your email about fees charged to tenants in the private rented sector (PRS). The aim of the Bill is to lessen the burden of up-front costs to tenants, to reduce barriers to entry and movement within the PRS. Inevitably this will require decisions to be made about what charges letting agents feel justified in making to landlords, and what charges the local market will accept, including in terms of rent. The consultation undertaken ahead of the Bill being introduced showed that many tenants, as well as their representative bodies, thought that a modest increase in the weekly or monthly rent would be preferable to having to find an up-front lump sum in order to rent a property. I view the proposed legislation as a fair way for the costs of letting agents to be met, since landlords have the power to shop around to identify the right deal for them. Most tenants currently pay the equivalent of around a month’s rent as a security deposit, which I think is reasonable. However, the Bill also includes a regulation-making power regarding security deposits, which would give Ministers the ability to set a maximum amount should deposits rise to amounts which may be impracticable for tenants to find, or which are not proportionate for the intention of the deposit. Yours sincerely, Rebecca”


    If the intention is to lessen the  upfront burden on tenants  why haven’t they addressed the  months deposit.?If they  made  it mandatory that Landlords subscribe to  a zero deposit  insurance scheme the tenant wouldn’t have to stump up the 4 weeks deposit t which overshadows the letting fee?.Gesture politics







    1. CountryLass

      I’ve just taken a quick look at the mortgage/remortgage on a comparison site, and those fees are around £1,000. I’d say that’s a barrier, having to find that amount, plus solicitors fees etc!

      Renting and homeownership both come with costs to the consumer. Checks and balances are needed to make sure that these costs are not excessive but you don’t get something for nothing in this world.

      1. Hillofwad71

        Yes but if it was mandatory  this would increase traffic to the insurance industry.spread the risk of default  and probably reduce as low as a week’s  rent

        1. CountryLass

          Plus, have you tried to get money out of an insurance company?

          1. Hillofwad71

             Not suggesting  it’s easy or beneficial to a landlord but if the intention of the legislation  is to make  it  less financially burdensome for tenants  up front  they have just chosen to  go for the low hanging fruit the letting fee which has  political appeal  -a gesture . The 4 weeks rent is much more onerous so why not target that as well.
            The insurance premium could be limited to a max of a month payout if in breach . The landlord is  in no worse position than holding a month’s deposit  I can’t see an insurance company would want more than a week’s rent cover ie a 25% premium Looks like everyone walks away happy

  2. Property Poke In The Eye

    ARLA is a complete waste of time, never done anything of substance for the industry.


You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.