Eric Walker has renewed his call for a “crimestopper” who can deal with complaints and police the private rented sector.
He said there are clearly letting agents who are flouting a range of laws, from tenancy deposit protection to full display of fees and the requirement to belong to a redress scheme.
Walker, managing director of Northwood, said: “As it is, no one will take responsibility.”
He said that a new watchdog with real teeth could and should be created, to protect consumers and establish a level playing field among agents.
Walker was speaking to Eye after we ran stories last week about non-compliance by letting agents – specifically of the need to join a redress scheme, which became law last October, and the requirement which kicked in on May 27 to show on their websites the fees they charge to both landlords and tenants, plus the redress scheme they belong to, and whether they offer Client Money Protection.
Since running those stories Eye has since been shown a letter from the National Trading Standards Estate Agents Team in response to an agent who complained about – and named – letting agents breaking the law on displaying fees.
His list of agents contains names very well known in the industry.
The letter in response says: “Thank you for your enquiry and we are very sorry to learn of other businesses not yet complying with recent changes in legislation and we hope that they will rectify this promptly.
“However, we must point out that this matter is outside our remit, as we deal solely with matters concerning estate agents and residential sales issues.”
The letter adds: “We are a small team whose terms of reference strictly do not allow us to be involved with letting agency issues.”
It suggests that the complainant refers the matter to the redress schemes; ARLA; the Department for Communities and Local Government; and, if appropriate, the NAEA.
Walker first made his call for a lettings industry policing body over two years ago.
He said: “Lettings agents can effectively operate outside the law in a way sales agents cannot. This is clearly wrong and contrary to what anyone would consider decent consumer protection or indeed common sense.
“Complain to Trading Standards about a garage, illegal booze or cockroaches in a sandwich and you unleash hell on the supplier. Complain that you haven’t received rent or your deposit and you are met with silence and then a suggestion to phone the TDS, ARLA or TPOS.
“I would love to see an organisation with teeth be created as an independent consumer watchdog.
“Imagine an apolitical lettings police or ‘Crimestoppers’ with the co-operation of all regulators, government and local authorities, with the power to investigate issues and create an early warning to other organisations.
“This would further benefit the existing regulators. Instead of advising a wronged party that there is nothing they can do as the agent isn’t a member, they could provide a useful contact which could help.
“The lettings problem is getting bigger as the market expands.”
Comments (9)
H4U – you perhaps misunderstood the idea. There would be no additional bureaucracy as the idea was a simple central point of contact rather than a complainant being passed from pillar to post. TPOS etc cannot impose fines, rather equitable compensation for loss. I know deposits are protected by statute, but still many go missing through dishonesty or business failure. A tenant can’t make a claim against an insolvent company who has spent the money and there is no compulsion to have CMP insurance.
I wrote why Eric is wrong; to want to increase rents in order to invent another layer of bureaucracy.
Before he wrote; that no one would listen. Eric had obviosly forgot about the Lettings Complaint Obudman(s) that all agents are required to join. That have the power to make monetary determinations.
Eric forgot that deposits are protected by statute; and tenants can claim up to 3 times the deposit amount if not protected.
A lot more detail; on Property Tribes:
http://www.propertytribes.com/northwood-eric-walker-calls-for-better-lettings-enforcement-t-14773.html#pid233878
Whilst it may appear that it is easier to ignore the legislation and that so many do just that, I urge everyone to comply. Believe me, all you need is an unrelated complaint and TSI will go through your office like a does of salts. I know of an agent who was visited due to a complaint regarding a board and random files were examined together with fee disclosure & even the requirements under the Business Names Act.
Having worked with many TSI inspectors over the years, it has become clear that it is down to the individual officer as to if they can be bothered. Most are more interested in car boots and counterfeit or under pressure to do so with the time available. But you are right, those that do inspect always seem to have no mercy and pick on small fry. Why do they not catch those that flout year on year and often much bigger fish (to labour intensive?)
As a Northwood Franchisee, I completely support Eric’s view; we all operate to the highest standard and to achieve full compliance of relevant codes and legislation. Given this creates a potentially uneven playing field, I always ensure at appointments with potential landlords that I point out some of these basic legislative requirements to enable these landlords to decide if the agent they are looking to use is operating legally and clearly plants seeds of doubt about how they operate in all aspects of their service if they are not legally compliant in some of these basic aspects.
As you should! as Eric said in a recent video on property tribes – Letting Agents that do not sign up to bureaucratic schemes can charge less fees – having a better margin.
As you point out your bureaucracy; I point out our flexibility and how we can pass on savings.
You have the “dubble whammy” part of a Franchise too; squeezing those margins.
When I complained to our local trading standards I was fobbed off with .,….. try ASA or PO, the latter as most will know will not take complaints from within the industry, only customers. Stupid if you ask me for it is within the industry is a prime source.
I completely agree with Eric. And as it seems unlikely to happen my commercial decision in all this might well have to be to cease respecting the law….. how else am I going to get back to a level playing field?
Rather shocking you can not compete today; in a rising market. Id pack it in! If you can not show a potential client the value compared to a dodgy agent, sounds about time to pack it up.