A leading industry figure has hit out at a national newspaper story run under the headline: “Letting agents tell disabled couple ‘move out or pay £600 a day’ – your eviction rights.”
Eric Walker, managing director of Northwood, said that the Mirror’s headline was factually wrong and sensationalist anti-agent propaganda.
He also criticised the story – which appears to mistake a ‘waiting time’ fee by an inventory clerk for a letting agent fee and which quotes Shelter – as being incorrect.
Both Shelter and the Mirror are running campaigns to outlaw letting agent fees.
The tenants had been served with a S.21 notice.
Disabled woman Helen Welsh and her husband Adrian said they had been told by their agent that they were being evicted and would be charged £25 for every hour they stayed after the eviction date – working out at £600 per day.
The story claimed the couple had “paid hundreds of pounds of letting fees when they moved into the flat four months ago”.
The story also quotes Shelter’s principal solicitor saying it is “completely unlawful for the agent to demand that they pay extra if they stay over the due date”.
Walker said that the Northwood office in question, in Eastbourne, East Sussex, had been given little time in which to respond to the claims.
Walker said: “The Mirror’s headline is simply untrue: Letting agent tells disabled couple ‘Move out or pay £600 a day’.
“No we didn’t. That would be ridiculous.
“We were given very little time to comment on this story and were never advised what sensationalist, misleading headline would be used. Had we, we would have been able to explain the facts.
“In the context of the real world, the £25 waiting time is charged by an independent inventory clerk; it has nothing to do with rent or fees. It was never intended to be a ‘fine’ just to ensure tenants adhere to their agreed appointment.
“It certainly doesn’t gross up to £600 a day any more than it does £219,000 a year. It’s the reasonable cost of the clerk for their lost time.
“As the local director said, if an appointment is rearranged, we will happily fit in and no charge would be applied. Nowhere have we ever stated we would charge £600 a day. The Mirror made that up.
“If a tenant fails to comply with notice under S.21 we would seek no more than the agreed rent. Is it fair for an inventory clerk to lose income when a tenant, having agreed to an appointment with over two months’ notice, fails to meet it?
“If such a tenant is clearly not ready to move we reschedule. Does the Mirror really believe our clerk will sit outside the property and charge £600 per day until they move?
“The reference to the fact the tenant paid £600 up front is a reference to rent, not a charge. The ‘hundreds of pounds in tenant fees’ was £240 inclusive of VAT, so technically plural of ‘hundred’.
“The claim that the couple struggled to find a flat due to landlords being reluctant to take tenants claiming benefits is hardly a criticism.
“That said, as the council advised the tenants to stay beyond the expiry date of the notice, perhaps one can begin to understand why landlords can be reluctant to accept tenants on benefits. We do not discriminate and take every application on its merits.
“The landlord requested possession for a valid reason. It was not our decision and we have no mandate to overrule the landlord.
“They are good tenants and we didn’t want to lose them, but must by law and TPO’s code of practice act on clients’ instructions. We act as agent, not principal.
“Notice under S.21 is not an eviction notice. It’s notice the landlord requires possession giving not less than two months’ notice.
“We gave more notice than that required and offered to help find an alternative property and waive future administration fees before the Mirror gave us just hours to respond.
“The 1988 Housing Act allows the landlord to seek possession and how can an agent refuse? We understand the effects of this and the teams always try to break it gently and wherever possible hand-deliver the letter and assess how we can help.
“This story appears to be anti-agent propaganda. We acted in accordance with clients’ instructions, the law and TPO’s code of practice.
“We have offered support beyond the call of duty as they are good tenants.
“We have done all we can to assist these tenants and will continue to work with them and the council to offer support.”
The Mirror story is here
Comments (18)
Sorry for late reply, been a bit hectic today, but good to see a bit of debate on something else today!
Eric, unfortunately the truth doesn’t make for such a sensational headline. Leave out a few salient points, twist things a little bit and there you go!
On HB tenants, I haven’t got any problem with it, we have lots of people getting top ups etc. Everyone should have a roof over their head, however, dealing with the council, sorting out issues when they occur and basically trying to get the money from some, not all, makes it hardly worth the effort.
With the councils actively encouraging people to stay put, they are compounding the problem and forcing landlords to turn their backs on HB tenants, because they know they are not going to get their property back, regardless of them complying with the law.
@mat109 – you can dress it up all you like. Section 21 is legal notice to vacate at the expiry of the notice. Most people do the right and proper thing, whereas others chose not to, for a number of reasons, not least because the council tells them not to. There should be no need for court possession as notice has been served, end of. The only reason for it is to ensure the landlord gets possession of their property as the tenant has failed to comply with a legal notice. You are condoning tenants ignoring this, so you might as well tell everyone to ignore any legal notice that they ever get for any reason, or do you want one rule for housing and another for anything else?
Two months is enough time to locate another property, if unable, then the council need to take ownership and house them. The reason they can’t is because their housing policy is shot to pieces and they haven’t got any properties to house everyone. So like immigration, money laundering and the housing shortage, agents and landlords are taking up the slack of the countless governments that can’t get our housing crisis sorted!
Ha hahhh! gotcha Eric
when you say “Someone simply took the waiting time and grossed it up to a ‘daily rate’” surely you mean “Someone simple took the waiting time and grossed it up to a ‘daily rate’”
Dear All,
The Landlord had every right to end the tenancy after 6 months and gave as much notice as possible. The term was clearly detailed in the tenancy agreement. The Landlord had good reason to require the property back and, even if they didn’t, we have no mandate to intervene. The Law requires a landlord to serve s21 to end a tenancy – it’s hardly sending the boys round. We don’t make laws, we have to comply with them.
As regards ‘£600 per day’ this was an extrapolation of an unrelated issue. The tenants are not due to move out until September and a check out time was arranged. The letter purely advised that the clerk could apply a reasonable charge if he had to wait equal to £25 per hour. If the tenant calls to say they they cant move out until say 5pm as they are perfectly entitled, we would simply rearrange the appointment.
We certainly would not apply £25 per hour in perpetuity until they vacated as it is inconceivable that the clerk would sit there until they did. What would a court say to any agent trying to charge 30 times the rent? It would be short and rude – and rightly so.
No one suggested this. Someone simply took the waiting time and grossed it up to a ‘daily rate’.
I agree with the points regarding councils advice to tenants, however I feel we should rent on merit and give benefit tenants an equal opportunity to rent wherever possible. Councils should work with the PRS and help address this issue.
“as the council advised the tenants to stay beyond the expiry date of the notice”.
As local government is so keen to legislate landlords and agents, wouldn’t it be nice if they were held accountable for inciting an unlawful action/breach of legal agreement which invariably costs the landlord financially?
It’s compounding the problem WT. Theyre just scaring away landlords at a time when we have a shortage of properties and huge demand from non DSS tenants.
I think the one thing it does show is the need for insurance, cover your legal bills and any missed rent for a £100 – £200 policy 12 months cover. Beats me why landlords do not purchase these!
Paul
JULY 6, 2015 AT 9:19 AM
“Isn’t the bigger story why didn’t the tenants move out? Section 21 is a legal notice, so we have a tenant ignoring the law and by the sounds of things (as usual), the council aiding and abetting the tenants in breaking the law.
By the time the possession order has been granted and they stay put, followed by the eventual bailiff visit, the landlord will be out of pocket by £700-£1000!”
There is a far bigger problem here that’s being missed by the national media which is the real lack of enthusiasm from the PRS to rent to DSS tenants. Put simply it’s too much hard work and nearly always comes with grief.
Those landlords that have tried it get there fingers burnt one way or another so don’t go back which makes it more and more harder for DSS tenants to find properties, thus making the problem worse. On almost a daily basis we get DSS tenants call us desperate to find properties, and it appears that many are now being encouraged to get guarantors and to say that they are not DSS tenants but are unemployed with guarantors.
The main problem we have experienced is at the end of the tenancy when notice is issued, the tenants then go to the council and the council actively tell them to stay put, which means more cost and more headache for landlords at some point down the track.
Once bitten twice shy.
Isn’t the bigger story why didn’t the tenants move out? Section 21 is a legal notice, so we have a tenant ignoring the law and by the sounds of things (as usual), the council aiding and abetting the tenants in breaking the law.
By the time the possession order has been granted and they stay put, followed by the eventual bailiff visit, the landlord will be out of pocket by £700-£1000!
The only saving grace is that it sounds like the rent is being paid, in cases where it’s isn’t, the final loss is normally thousands!
But let’s not investigate the councils, the serial non payers or the excuse of a legal process that allows tenants to continually abuse the system and cost law abiding landlords thousands upon thousands and sometime even there homes. Not all landlords are in it for the money, some were out in the postition and would like to return to their home.
There is no place for rouge landlords, corner cutters or agents that rip people off, but let’s get some balance.
@Paul – it is a legal notice, but not moving out is not “breaking the law”. Section 21 doesn’t end a tenancy, it just gives a landlord to go to court and obtain a possession order.
I rent and if I had nowhere else to go, I would ignore a section 21 too – wouldn’t you?
I’d also say the agent’s notice was incredibly poorly worded.
I think a little context is sometimes required here. Now, if you replace “landlord/agent” with “bank” where a possession order is always required to get a defaulting mortgagee to move out, you can see what the problem is. Would you leave if your bank just asked you to go?
Probably not.
This is the tenant’s home, and if they are up to date with the rent I think they have a right to be a bit miffed after only four months. I just hope noone knew this was the landlord’s intention before he let the place out.
‘mat109′ – you can read what you want into this but that’s all you are doing.
You do not know any of the facts and circumstances surrounding why the S.21 was served. You are simply looking from the tenants’ (your) perspective and chucking your own thoughts forward and hoping they are somewhere near the ballpark never mind the batsman.
NOT a good way to enter into debate when those that know exactly what went where and when are on the other side of the ball you are wildly throwing…
I don’t quite understand what circumstances you are discussing here through the impenetrable thicket of cricket related analogies. I would like to point out the quote from Northwoods in that article:
‘Paul Ryder, director of the Eastbourne branch of Northwood Letting Agents, said: “They are good tenants and we would like to keep them on, but the landlord wants the property back.’
I think you are implying I don’t know if the tenants’ behaviour triggered the S21. Northwoods have themselves come out and said they did not. They clearly weren’t expecting this so can’t have been forewarned during the letting process.
Yes, perhaps the landlord is having financial trouble or has died and the property needs to be sold. I was reacting to Paul’s frankly ludicrous statement painting the tenants as criminals and trying to get him to see it from their side.
“I don’t quite understand what circumstances you are discussing here...”
EXACTLY. Good to hear we agree on something, at least.
“I would like to point out the quote from Northwoods in that article…”
I’m sure you would – you think it bears you out. Here’s another from the article:
“The landlord requested possession for a valid reason”
Like I have said – without the FULL facts in front of us everything is open to individuals’ own interpretation.
A ball/train/bullet/comet heading toward you looks far different from one travelling away from you.
Best you accept and appreciate the difference.
mat109 – it’s also worth noting, and important to understand, that if a landlord and tenant sign a fixed term contract of six months, then that is all either party have a right to expect – six months. In the absence of anything to indicate otherwise, it is wrong to “assume” that the tenancy will last longer.
it’s important to consider these issues before starting the tenancy.
I understand this – but if you can’t buy your own home or access social housing, there isn’t much else you can do if you need longer.
Six months to a year is fairly standard – and enforced by BTL mortgages – even if you have a real need for longer.
Mat109 – People like you are the problem, you look to play the system to your benefit.
You enter a 6 month agreement knowing you may have to move after this period. Whatever reason the landlord has is valid. ITS THEIR PROPERTY.
If you dont like it negotiate a longer tenancy or for security look into buying.
You are probably the same sort of tenant that thinks they should live in a maintenance free home. Smallest problem call the landlord or letting agent.
Part of the downside of renting is you have no long term stability. But the upside is its cheap to move whenever you like. You cannot have it both ways!
I will say it is refreshing to hear your argument. I dont offer lettings but recently thought i should after a few articles on here and talking to others.
You have shown me why i really should not get involved. And before you say good, at least the majority of agents keep to the law, good luck finding private landlords managing properties themselves, i am sure the service is fantastic!
It’s certainly not unheard of for tenants to be still casually loading up their van when the clerk arrives. “Oh. we’re running a bit late, can you come back in a couple of hours?”…..
So naturally we do all we can to persuade them that when the clerk arrives they need to have completed their move-out and be ready to hand over keys.
And fully accept Eric’s explanation of events. Shame on The Mirror, but I doubt they care one way or the other, so long as they turn a profit. It’s disgusting and they should give some thought to the knock-on effect of their actions.
Very harsh from the mirror and it does indeed appear to be nothing but sensationalist propaganda.
And Eric is right that the advice being given by the council to tenants about staying on until being evicted is in part helping to deter any landlords from tenting to DSS tenants.
Re the waiting fee, an inventory clerk/company does have the right to charge a fee for a cancelled appointment, the only justification for the mirrors reporting on this is if Northwood used their own internal clerk if not then it is not Northwood who is charging the fee but instead the inventory company.