Which? is calling for a review of tenancy agreements used by lettings agents as part of its latest investigation into the sector.
The consumer watchdog tracked the experiences of more than 2,500 tenants as they searched for, secured, lived in and moved on from rented accommodation in England.
It got a housing lawyer to assess some of the tenancy agreements and found unclear language and clauses that could be considered unfair such as making tenants liable for costs that are a landlord’s responsibility or banning tenants from changing gas or electricity supplier.
The research also found supposed evidence of agents pressuring prospective tenants to pay holding deposits or sign contracts without the information needed to make informed decisions.
Millennials were one and a half times more likely to have raised an issue with their lettings agent than other age groups, with one in five claiming they did not receive a written tenancy agreement when they moved into a property.
The report also found tenants were fearful of reporting issues with the property to their landlord.
Half of the respondents said they have ordered, carried out or paid for repairs themselves, with 23% saying they did so to avoid causing problems with their landlord.
Only 44% tenants who felt like making a complaint did so, with 58% fearing repercussions from their landlord.
To combat these issues, Which? is calling for all landlords to be registered with local authorities, with information logged on a publicly available database linked to the existing register of rogue landlords and agents established in April.
It wants to see the creation of an independent regulator for lettings and management agents with a mandatory, legally binding code of practice and strong penalties for rogue operators.
Which? has also suggested a review of tenancy agreements used by letting agents to establish how widespread the use of “unfair, inaccurate or misleading terms and conditions” is, and says action should be taken by the Competition and Markets Authority if required.
Rocio Concha, chief economist for Which?, said: “Our comprehensive look at the experiences of tenants exposes the failings in a rental sector that has failed to keep pace with changes in society that have made renting a long-term reality – rather than just a stepping stone – for millions of people.
“The Government must tackle the issues we have identified in our report head on, to ensure the rental market delivers for consumers.”
Comments (16)
‘ WHICH ; – ( Hunt ) could call for Capital Punishment for Landlords who don’t install jacuzzi’s and offer properties rent-free !
( well, they started it )
I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the Which? offices ideas room –
Manager “Hey Dave, we need to jump on the bandwagon and get the government to help all these poor tenants, what can we do?”
Employee “Penalties for invalid gas safety checks??”
Manager “Already done”
Employee “Legislation for people to have the right to rent in this country?”
Manager “Already done, come on Dave!”
Employee “How about banning tenant fees?”
Manager “They’ve done that too, come on now, its 4:55 we need something now. We close in 5 minutes!”
Employee “Erm… unfair tenancy agreements?”
Manager “Done, get it to print!”
Which call a survey of 2500 tenants a ‘comprehensive’ survey?? Seriously? Wow. With every one of these Which are losing any credibility they had.
Statistically speaking, 2,500 responses is an excellent rate to give a good indication of intention with an error rate of just a couple of percent. They have surveyed more than enough people to be confident on the results.
Have they not seen the Governments “How to Rent Guide” for tenants? Perhaps we (agents/Landlords) should offer a spoon feeding service and pop round to tuck the tenants into bed at night too????
You forgot wiping their a***s
I say it again. No one, absolutely no one and least of all government, has carried out a comprehensive impact assessment of the CUMULATIVE effect of all the recent measures increasing COSTS and RISK for landlords.
Many of the measures are sensible. Or would be if enforced. Some are daft. Lobbyists clamouring for yet more are ideologically blind to the consequences of their demands. But the overall effect is unknown. Except these two things. It is clear now that
1. landlords are unhappy and are starting to exit.
2. rents on new lets are on the rise. They have to, to be viable.
And it is the poorest of our society (both working and on benefits) that are ALREADY paying the price.
Homelessness is rising.
And when they suffer, the economy suffers, society suffers, social fragmentation and resentment of “the haves” increases. The influence of the far right minority increases. Not just in the UK but across Europe. We all pay the price.
This is about the “have nots” sticking it to the “haves”, the “establishment”. And let’s be very clear, if you work in property, then rightly or wrongly you are perceived as part of the establishment, that has robbed the millennials of their pensions, screwed the housing market, starved the NHS, caused austerity, supported student debt and failed the residents of Grenfell. This is the backlash. The wider public see property people, you, us, as “profiteering lizards”. I quote.
Facts, such as the English Housing Survey saying PRS tenants are more satisfied than HA tenants, are brushed aside. Evidence-based policy making is not happening here.
The push against BTL is far from done and PRS pain is not yet at peak. For landlords OR tenants.
“And the weak suffer what they must”.
Entirely on the contrary (IMHO) Realitycheck97, as your view seems to be based on the premises that the ‘powers that be’…
i) …give two hoots about Tenants, Landlords or agents…They do not.
ii) …desires a functioning PRS in its current form…Again, they do not.
I believe, (in the face of the continuing onslaught of negative propaganda, increasing red tape {and its associated costs}, increasing regulation, changes in taxation regimes etc. etc.) that the impact that will be seen in the coming years is PRECISELY that which the Govt. (more importantly, those who fund campaigns/political parties, and those who benefit irrespective of which political party may win an election [indeed, many of the key party political donors, back both ‘horses’ ) wish to achieve.
The constant attacks on the PRS, agents and ‘small holder’ Landlords is not simply a case of ‘scape-goating’ or aiming fury at an industry in an attempt to ‘win’ votes. It is my belief that we are currently witnessing the take-over of the PRS by institutional investors/financiers under the guise of Govt./lobbyist intervention to achieve ”better treatment of tenants”/ ”improvement to”/”fixing” a ”broken” housing market.
The PRS is very soon to become the CRS (Corporate Rental Sector).
I believe that the Home Office are also looking into reintroducing capital punishment for residential landlords and their agents.
..I also understand that the draft proposal sets out the requirement that a Landlord must provide, within three working days of a request being made, each Tenant with one unicorn called ”Barry”. Failure to do so can result in fines of up to £3,000,000.00 per Unicorn-less Tenant and the death penalty, where appropriate*.
*’Appropriateness’ will be assess by ‘Shelter’ as a part of their ‘charity’ work, on an entirely arbitrary basis.
2,500 tenants? Probably less than move in 1 small town over a few months, that is not a survey, it’s a drop in a very big and getting bigger ocean!
No background to the survey, did they approach tenants or were they referred via an agency such as citizen’s advice in which case likely to be disgruntled tenants?
The time has come for industry to say enough is enough, no more landlord and agent bashing but who will stand up for us ?..
For a tenant population size that we have, a response rate on a survey of 2,500 people is more than enough to be within a couple of percent of the statistical mean. You can criticise the results all you like, but the math at least checks out.
I believe it to be inaccurate I’m afraid, how about a national survey conducted by capital economics. That way it’s unbiased and not trying to serve its own agenda.
Go on Which you can do it jump and the bandwagon of landlord bashing! If it is a unfair term in a contract it is not enforceable. Without landlords tenants would not exist and more people would be living on the street since the councils and Government have asset stripped the social housing market.
Just to clarify for Which, the industry doesnt need any more red tape or more government bodies to pay subscriptions to. There are plenty of authorities that can issue penalties or restrictions when a letting agent breaks the law, but these authorities dont have the teeth or money to do so. Setting up up additional regulatory bodies will just spread the pot of government money more thinly and make each organisation less effective.
”It got a housing lawyer to assess some of the tenancy agreements and found unclear language…”
Clearly not a particularly bright housing ‘lawyer’.