The Harpenden Estate Agent Cull??

Bit of Friday fun. Well, it made me laugh anyway.

 "Estate Agent culling in the United Kingdom is being trialled as a way to reduce Estate Agent numbers in a set area, in the hope of controlling the spread of smarmy overused adjectives. Humans can catch the flagrant overuse of superfluous adjectives, but public health control measures, including the English Language education vaccine mean it is not a significant risk to human health. 

The disease affects car salesmen and other high street conmen (including bankers, a small subsection of letting agents, double glazing salesmen, insurance salesmen, and llamas), and some species of town based wildlife including Estate Agents, mortgage brokers and a few members of the general public. Geographically, the use of pointless adjectives has spread from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the west and south-west of England and Wales in the 2010s. Some people believe this correlates with the lack of Estate Agent control.

In October 2013, culling in England was controversially trialled in two pilot areas in Birmingham and in Hertfordshire. The main aim of these trials was to assess the humaneness of culling using "free shooting" (previous methods trapped the Estate Agents in cages before shooting them). The trials were repeated in 2014. In August 2015 it was announced culling would be rolled out across the Greater London Area with a target of 615 to 835 Estate Agents being culled there, while also being continued in Birmingham and Hertfordshire. 

Licences were granted to allow six weeks of continuous culling in the three counties until 31 January. In December 2015, HMRC released documents confirming the Estate Agent cull had "met government targets" with 756 muppets culled in Greater London, 432 in Birmingham and 279 in Hertfordshire. As of December 2015, there is no UK-wide policy of Estate Agent culling, however due to public pressure the government is currently reviewing its standpoint on the issue." 

 Adapted from the Wikipedia page on the controversial (and serious) issue of Badger culling. Harpenden could certainly nominate a few candidates I'm sure.

Fire Safety in Properties

When it comes to property, there are definitely risks - most of us look at the financial aspects when it comes to looking at our homes and investments, but the physical risks are quite obviously a factor as well. We've all seen the adverts and the promotion about house fires and the importance of alarms in recent years, and anyone who has seen a burned out house may think it's something that can never happen to them.

The fire statistics published by the Home Office on the 29th June 2016 covering the reported cases in 2014/2015 amass to roughly 496,000 incidents, of which six percent were related to dwellings - which equates to 31,300 homes affected by fire.

The most dangerous room in your house for a fire?  The living or dining room, believe it or not! And you're most at risk if you smoke in the property or if you're over 60, according to the statistics on fatalities in house fires during this period. Perhaps unsurprisingly, misuse of cooking appliances accounts for a huge number of casualties and fire related incidents every year. The most common time of day for a fire to break out?  The evening, between 4pm and 10pm. There were 7,600 casualties attributed to fire related incidents in England in 2014/2015.

We need to take note of this information, and assist our fire departments in reducing the number of fires that break out - their work has seen a massive reduction in the number of fires and fire related deaths since 2003, but there's still more we can do to ensure our homes and investments are fire safe. I spoke to Ben Cornish from Red & White Fire Protection to get the inside track on what we need to look out for to not only stay compliant, but more importantly stay safe;

"There are several important pieces of legislation which impact on fire safety within dwellings" says Ben.

"Some affect all dwellings irrespective of the layout or how it is occupied. Some legislation only applies to dwellings which are occupied by tenants who are unrelated or only applies to certain parts of the building."

Ben offered a list of legislation, which we'd like to share with you below. 

"Depending on the type of property and how it is occupied some or all of the following will apply."

A. Building Regulations 2010 Part B.

Application - all dwellings where any significant building work is carried out.

B. Housing Health & Safety Rating System ("HHSRS")

Fire is included in the 29 hazards covered by the system introduced by Housing Act 2004.

Application - this applies all dwellings, rented or private.

C. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

This applies to all rented dwellings.

D. Fire Safety Order - [The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order2005]

See the guidance on Fire Safety in purpose-built flats.

See the guidance for common parts of bedsits and converted flats in LACORS guide.

Application - common parts (i.e. the shared areas including shared stairways, landings, kitchens, bathrooms etc.) of dwelling buildings containing in bedsits and flats both converted and purpose built.

Ben goes on to add a little further information regarding smaller dwellings;

"If a flat is occupied as bedsits there are two sets of common parts within the building. The first is the shared access route to the flat front door and other is the shared areas within the flat e.g. hallway, shared kitchen, bathroom etc - in that instance, both areas would require risk rating."

"But, remember it does not apply to shared houses let on a joint tenancy, unless it's an HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) in which case it does apply"

We've linked above to the relevant documents so you can read for yourself - as you can see, it's a minefield of legislation and while the danger may be slim, as a landlord or a property owner it is your responsibility to ensure the property, it's fixtures and fittings and contents are fire safe - in the event of a fire, you'd need to be able to prove that you took all the necessary steps to prevent it.

If you're confused or unsure of your obligations when it comes to fire safety, our recommendation is that you do not take chances and do everything you can to make sure you're compliant, and part of that should be contacting either myself directly so that I can put you in touch, or go straight to Ben to conduct a comprehensive fire safety review.

Stay stafe, and make sure you're compliant.

Online Low Cost Estate Agents - Do they really save you money?

This is part of a much much larger piece that I've been planning on discussing for some time, but some recent news events have once again spurred me on to share this with local folk who are thinking of 'saving thousands' by using a cheap alternative.

Now before I start, and without mentioning any names, I have worked for an 'Online Agent' and it was eye opening to say the least. I took stock of the situation and learned everything I could about what they were doing and set up on my own with what I believe to be the right focus - offering clients my expertise and the best service I can possibly manage with the resources I have available. That experience gives me a higher than average standpoint and the qualification to make comments on how one of the larger ones was run, and how much of an embarrassment the place was.

The focus of the articles I want to share with you though is one particular online offering in Manchester who claimed to have saved a client in London a substantial sum - so much so in fact that it was published in the most credible news source around.....The Daily Mail. The firm in question claim that they sold the home, worth £24 million, for just £549, saving their client a whopping £30,000 in fees. That sounds brilliant, cue the stampede of vendors looking to cut their selling costs - there's a bargain bin over here and the savings are tremendous!

Here's the original Property Industry Eye article reporting the Daily Mail's Article.

That all sounds great doesn't it?  I mean, who would bother going to a high street agent when you could save that much money on any size home? Well, it does sound great until you find out that it was a load of rubbish.

Today, high end agent Knight Frank have set the record straight and it shows that it was in fact they who sold the property - so maybe the article was just a big publicity stunt, but how many of the other listings are false and how many of the claims made by low price tag firms are fibs to entice you in?

You might be thinking - who cares?  If it can be done for £500 or less - why not just do that? Well, not wishing to be rude but I feel this can only be approached with a blunt instrument.....I'm afraid you're showing your thorough lack of understanding for what this industry actually does for you when you engage any of us to act on your behalf in a Sale or a Let.  Can it be done for less?  For next to nothing?  Yes, of course it can - anything can - to say otherwise would be obtuse and farcical. Almost any product or service can be done on the cheap and mass produced - you can buy a cheap house, a cheap car, cheap food from a cheap supermarket, cheap clothes, a cheap holiday, you can have cheap furniture in your home, a cheap TV, you could even go so far as to live on the cheapest road in the cheapest town in the cheapest country. And you can even get a cheap tattoo while you're at it.......

Getting the picture yet?  Ok, so clearly, nobody does that - it's ridiculous. We all have a priority list for things that we feel should be quality. We might have the home and car we can just about afford, but hey what's wrong with a designer suit or a nice pair of shoes - we're entitled to luxuries, that's part of why you go to work to earn your wages, so you can occasionally have nice things, otherwise why bother?? BUT...what I'd like you to do is take a moment for a little introspection and think about the last time you bought something that you needed to rely on and it failed. Sure, doesn't always happen - I've bought cheap and it's done the job it was meant to do - maybe not perfectly, maybe it's not as luxurious as the higher priced things, but it worked.....for a while......ok once......and it could have worked better I guess, but hey it got the job done.

Ever had that dialogue with yourself or somebody else? Nice bit of post-purchase rationalization going on there! It happens all the time - maybe you took your respectable car that you bought at a bargain price to a local garage to have it fixed, and it came back with something else more serious broken, and you vowed never to use them ever again, the greasy nincompoop spanner monkeys. Maybe you wanted that £100 pair of shoes but settled for the cheap pair from the wall of trainers at the Sports shop for £20 - bargain! They fell apart 6 weeks later didn't they. It could be anything. Think about how you felt that you'd spent money - admittedly less money - but you didn't really get much for it.  Angry? Upset? Annoyed? Foolish? Embarrassed? You rationalise your mistake by making excuses. Why do you feel that way? It's because you've been conned into a low quality low priced product and you didn't actually get what you needed.

Now I want you to consider your home, or your investment property. How much is it worth, to you? I don't mean the market value, but how much effort and time and stress did you put into viewing it, offering on it, securing the mortgage, going to work busting your butt to make the payments, dealing with agents and solicitors and paperwork and banks and oh LORD it's never ending, all of that to get to where you are. The money you've sunk into this asset is immeasurable and it's eaten up a large proportion of your income for years now, and now you need to find a new tenant or you need to sell to move on - and you're telling me you want to deal with a busy call centre of people who are paid so little there's literally no reason for them to care about any of your needs or what you're trying to achieve?  Or a company with a 'local expert' who doesn't need any qualifications or experience to do the job and will be so desperate to do deals they'll put that above your needs? Companies who will charge you upfront and keep your money even if they don't sell your home.

No two house sales are the same - the circumstances of the buyer and the vendor are absolutely unique and need to be considered, and as Property Professionals negotiating sales or lets it is our job to understand them both, otherwise you simply will not get the best price (note I say best, not highest - there's a difference).

Now it's fair to say that we need to be balanced - the other end of the scale is a traditional High Street outfit with huge glassy offices, cars, sharp suits, rolexes and a slimy disposition. These sharks want to keep your business, but are scratching their empty heads as to why people are getting a bit pissed off with being charged 1.5% - 2.0% + VAT and are still getting a teenager who's favourite phrase is "I don't know" on a viewing, and his babysitter negotiating the finer points of a house sale that could potentially lead to your triumph or utter ruin if they cock it up. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you - with the average house price in the UK sitting at around £300k, most of you will hand over £4,500 plus another £900 in VAT on top of that to somebody who's top skills appears to be holding clipboards, shaking hands, driving too fast and drinking cheap coffee (surely they can afford something better than this base gutrot for their customers?!) - yeah, damn right you should be annoyed. There has to be another way. Right? Right??  Please tell me this isn't our fate!

The thing that everyone seems to miss is what people actually need. If you're selling or letting, you are seeking somebody who is an expert in the local market, who knows the prices, who knows the lay of the land, but also somebody who is capable of reaching a large audience of potential buyers, and can arrange everything for you, do the bits you're unsure of and you're willing to pay a modest fee for that. Sure, if you had the time you'd do it yourself, but you're too busy, so you look for a person who can just get it done, find a buyer and do all the technical bits on your behalf so you can get on with your life. The point is - service and expertise are the things people need, not low prices or smooth talking thick rich kids. The public aren't cheesed off with the price, they're cheesed off with paying that price for not getting what they need.

The fact of the matter is with this cheap fee idea, you have to look at it from the other end. Nobody, even online agents, start a business as an act of altruism - they all need to make money. The staff won't take a job answering phones and dealing with the inevitable stress piled on them from dealing with complicated house sales for less than a certain amount - that, plus offices and computers and heating, lighting, insurances, professional memberships, compliance, tax, accounting, all creates overheads that must be paid from the revenue.  With me so far?  So how do you save revenue? You cut your costs - biggest overhead in a business?  Staff and premises. So you lose the shop front, and you do what with the staff?

That's right, they hire low paid inexperienced unqualified chickens reading from a script to keep gullible customers just happy enough so that they don't ask too many questions, and if they DO ask too many questions, bounce them round and don't call back until they wear themselves out like an angry toddler (not my words, and yes it was said in the office and laughed about - that's what you're buying into folks!). This inevitably erodes the service you get, so the con is that you're actually looking at the wrong thing - the price. You're ignoring the intangible - the things that you get with a product or service at a higher price point that are thoroughly stripped away with cheaper alternatives. Warranties, insurances, after care, and most importantly people taking a vested interest in doing their best for you because you're paying them what they're actually worth to undertake a complex and challenging task on your behalf.

When you try to save money, do you think you're getting the same service? Ask yourself honestly if you moved a fridge for somebody who paid you a tenner, would you care about how you handled it? Would you care more if they paid you £100? Does paying less guarantee you the absolute best price for your asset? Will it be from somebody who is fighting hard on your side because you're actually paying them well for an extremely complex and challenging task, pouring in their years of experience and qualifications to assist you because they're going to do well out of it alongside you?

You know the answer to that.

The evidence is everywhere, everything that is cheap and you pay less for is going to come at a price elsewhere - and in this instance it's service and care. You may save money, and you may be fortunate in taking the epic gamble with the largest financial asset you'll ever own and get through the process completely painlessly. But have got to ask yourself one question - do I feel lucky?

Well......Do ya?



P.S.

I think the bottom line of this sign says it all, frankly.

Footnote:

A real life example I heard from an industry colleague is illustrated quite simply by looking at some figures from a house they were looking to sell but the vendor wanted to go 'online';

The client had their home valued and had two options. An online agent charging £500 upfront, and a local full-service agent charging 1% on completion (nothing upfront).  The property was worth approximately £375,000 and was on the market for £382,000 to allow potential buyers to make offers and give the owner some wiggle room. The client loved the idea of saving £3250 in agency fees (if he sold at market value) and was honest with my colleague about being sucked in by the dulcet tones of the Online offering.

Here's my colleagues response;

A: "So.....let me get this straight......you're telling me that you're considering using an agent who is cheaper by £3250?"

C: "Yes, it's a no brainer - I'll save a fortune!"

A: "OK, so would you use me if I said I can make you at least £6,500 on the sale"

C: "That would be brilliant, but I don't see how you can do that??"

A: "Simple - because you pay me a rate that is not only enough for me to care about the sale to work hard and actually sell at your asking price or above, but also enough for me to give the time and resources required to achieve the price you want - if you paid me £500 upfront, what incentive to I have to bother? When I work with you I'm an expert in my field and the local area and I can sell this property for a price that more than covers my fee, and put more money in your pocket - if you go online, it might only cost you £500 upfront, but you could potentially stand to lose £6,500 on the sale of the house"

C: "............"

The client signed up and they sold the house within a week for more than the asking price. Not a tactic I've personally used, and certainly not true in every case as all businesses are different and have different methods, but to me it just demonstrates that paying somebody what they're worth is how you get results, cutting corners might get to the end of the race but it's going to fall way short of where you could have been had you paid the right money for a professional in the first place.

How times have changed...

Inspired by a post I saw on Facebook where a Lettings Agency colleague shared an article about the cost of living in 1974 published by The Guardian, I was spurred on to have a look at the differences between then and now, particularly in terms of housing.

In a recent radio interview with BBC Three Counties on the Roberto Perrone show, I was part of a panel of property experts discussing the state of the British housing market, and in particular how it affects the local area.  We were on air on the day of the Brexit vote, and so we couldn't discuss that particular elephant in the room, but one thing came up with didn't sit right with me - "When I bought my first house, it was just as hard as it is now." It seemed tinged with pomposity and self righteousness, and seemed to belittle the struggle of anyone who might be pushing forth toward their dream of owning their own home, no matter how modest that may be.

At the time, I didn't have the figures to hand, and statistical analysis is a tough game to be in - as they say, you can say anything with facts - and indeed many factors go into comparing one period in time with another, however I've wanted to look at this for a while and this article gave me the impetus to do a little research.

Recently an online battle between Baby Boomers and Millenials (personally I sit between the two in terms of generational age so I get to see the whole debate from a unique viewpoint) as to whether it really is just as hard now as it was then has erupted with each side slinging accusations at the other. The younger generation feel that their elders managed to get rich on a booming housing market, and had an easy route in to generating great wealth, which they're now enjoying in their golden years, some in great luxury. And the older generation feel they had to work hard, and live on very little in order to get where they are, and they sometimes view the younger generation with scorn and disdain for being idle thrillseekers with little concept of what hard graft really means. Who is right here? It's true to say that not everyone agrees with either camp, but the bitter aftertaste is there - the younger wondering why they cant have what their parents and grandparents enjoy, and sitting in baffled bemusement about how they're supposed to get there, and the older generations scoffing at the impetuous comments of coasting millenials.

Here are the facts I managed to dig up - bear in mind i'm not a member of MENSA or some kind of mathematician, but I think you'll agree the results are certainly interesting. The Guardian Article cites the average house price in 1976 as £12,704 and the average wage of £72 per week - that works out to £3,744 per annum. Based on that, the average wage made up 29.47% of the average house price. The annual average interest rate was 6.8%. Fast forward to 2016, the average wage is £27,600 and the average house price is £211,230 (Land Registry, May 2016) which means the average uk wage is now just 13.06% of the average house price. Interest rates are 0.5%.

That's a decrease of 55.68% in the purchasing power of modern wages against those of the populace in 1976. Yes, borrowing is far cheaper when you isolate interest rates, however access to borrowing is much tighter than it has been for years thanks to the banks ruining the economy in 2007/2008. Not only this but look at the population figures - 56.21 million people lived in the UK in 1976, versus 65.11 million in 2016 - an increase in population of 15%. When you add in to the mix a scarcity of property, you end up with inflated house prices.

That all seems to point to the fact that todays first time buyers have got it far harder than those who went house hunting back in 1976 - more competition, harder to get a bank to lend to you, larger mortgage payments and greater in terms of length to keep those payments down. It's a frightening set of statistics, but it's important when looking at statistics like these to understand that 'averages' don't paint the whole picture, and the ease/difficulty will have differed depending on where you lived, what work was available, infrastructure, transport, daily living costs - all of these things play a part. It has to be noted that the country had over 1 million people unemployed, the economy was in the toilet and there were massive public sector strikes, as well as one of the hottest summers on record. Incidentally, it was also the year that Ford Fiesta was first produced - hence the picture.

Anyway, perhaps the sad reality is that owning a home now is something that will simply never happen for a lot of people without making some heavy sacrifices elsewhere in their lifestyle, and they may find themselves renting for life. It's up to us all to work to change the tide away from 'generation rent' if we think it's important to us as a nation. It does have severe implications - young families renting won't be in a position to remortgage to cover nursing home costs, or take in elderly relatives. If you're wise and invest in property now and push to become a Landlord, you can probably rest assured that you won't be short of tenants - or nursing home funds - for a long time yet.

You can read The Guardian article by Viv Gorskop here

Photographical science, dear Watson

 Since I started Hawk & Chadwick I’ve always had a bee in my bonnet about Estate Agents and their god awful pictures. Just go look on any major portal right now and I’m willing to bet my left kidney that within the top 10-15 listings you’ll find photographs that appear to have be taken by somebody who forgot their orthopaedic shoes when they left for work that morning. 

 It’s infuriating because when you think of the service you expect when marketing your property with a local professional, you’d be well within your rights to be outraged if they can’t even operate a camera and show up without a tripod. Equally you should be outraged by third party image manipulation with clearly false blue skies being pasted into the background of dreary images. 

 I know I might sound like a grumpy old man, but the fact of the matter is we are now working in an environment where the first thing a potential buyer or tenant is going to see is a photograph of the front of your house, or possibly one of the internal rooms. They will make a split second decision on whether to view your property based on that image, and so it has to be bloody good to catch their attention.

 Let me explain why that is the case. When our eyes our open, our vision accounts for two-thirds of the electrical activity of the brain. Approximately 40% all nerve fibres connected to the brain are linked to the retina, and more of our neurons are dedicated to vision than the other four senses combined. And as if that’s not nearly enough, your brain processes visuals and images 60,000 times faster than it does text. Now you know why an image is worth 1000 words. 

 When you extend this biological predisposition for visual stimuli into the screen-ruled social media world we live in with far more people walking into lamp posts than ever before, it starts to really add up. Recent studies found that nearly half of all Internet users have re-posted a photo or video they have found online, and Tweets with embedded images receive 150 percent more retweets – same for Facebook posts that are image rich. Agents who post social media content with relevant images get 94 percent more views than content without images. 

 The bottom line is that strong imagery elicits an emotional response in the viewer. So to be all dandy about it, what I do as a photographer of your home is to convey that homeliness and that sense of warmth, comfort, attraction, safety and the welcoming nature of home to the observer (who hopefully will later become an enquirer, a viewer and then a tenant or buyer) – of course, there is a large amount of that which depends on who that person is and their purposes and mindset when viewing the photograph, but looking at the scientific data mentioned earlier it absolutely stands to reason that putting in the effort required to present your home smartly and professionally and with the absolute best quality images available is what I like to call a No Brainer.  
 And listen, I’m not about to fly into some uber-technical tirade about the Rule of thirds, The Golden ratio, the Fibonacci sequence or something else that sounds like a Dan Brown novel. Yes, those techniques exist and yes they’re relevant but the main thing to take away from this is that just having images is good, but it’s not enough. High quality and attention to detail within your images, and how they are presented to the general public (i.e. the people who ultimately will be the key to your financial advancement) is VITAL to succeeding in a marketplace where you’re trying to attract the buyer that’s thinking of buying your neighbour’s house across the street. You need Every. Single. Competitive. Advantage. 

 Start with excellent pictures. Then pick an agent who has a verified track record of success in using them.

I'll just do my own inventory

Let me start by just telling you what an incredibly bad idea that is.  No, really - it's the worst idea you've had, ever. Doing your own inventory for your property can only be compared to attempting skydiving without instruction, or attempting to fly a helicopter after a heavy absinthe binge - possibly even lion taming while blindfolded and wearing a meat coat.

The problem is, you might be lucky and have a situation where nothing happens - you might even have ran tenancies for years without any problems, but to coin a term - one swallow does not a summer make.

For those who haven't a clue what I'm on about, let me explain something. When a tenant agrees to rent a property, the landlord will often make a reasonable effort to give the property to their new tenant in a good condition - clean, freshly decorated and in a generally operable and liveable condition. Many tenants do their best to look after this and return things in a pretty good state, but there's always been this grey area - is it like a hotel room, or do i treat it like my own house?  Hmmmm....

Now without getting into the legal semantics and boring the pants off everyone lets just say that the way it works in 2016 is that a tenant pays a deposit (usually between 1-2 months worth of rent) to the landlord who holds the money against any damage and returns it at the end of the tenancy - the deposit has to go into an approved scheme and be properly protected.

"So who decides what's damaged and what isn't? Surely things wear out over time?"

Exactly, young gwasshopper. That's what the inventory is for - you have to hold some kind of record of what it was like at the start, in order to be able to prove that there is a difference at the end - savvy?

So what happens if you write your own inventory on the back of a fag packet - well, besides obviously missing things out and ending up with a huge tangled mess when you get to the end and your tenant turns out to be a qualified solicitor or a housing officer....or worse a letting agent....the other problem you have is impartiality (which, incidentally, is why getting your letting agent to do your inventories is equally daft) because you can be accused of twisting things in your favour.

So what's the solution? Well, as usual being the author of this article I get to have the pompous self righteousness to dole out advice as I see fit, but in all sincerity the best option you have is to approach an AIIC qualified inventory clerk and have a robust detailed inventory carried out on your property.

The level of detail will ensure that far from having to resolve disputes at the end, there simply won't be any - if you leave no margin for error and no grey area, then there can be no argument and everything will be fully signed and squared away meaning you and the tenant can walk away at the end without a bad word between you.

An inventory clerk also takes note of things such as meter readings, ensuring you and your tenant aren't paying more than you should be for utilities and bills when tenancies change. It keeps everything in the open, documented and very fair.

Having a hyper detailed inventory also compels the tenant to look after your property and to report and problems promptly. It's just one of the many ingredients that go in to making managing property a breeze rather than a headache.

Another hidden benefit is if you are able to file away your inventories you can look back and create budget projections for the replacement of larger items, meaning you can really nail down your cash flow and start thinking very clearly about allocating budgets which will allow you to expand your portfolio.

For every tenancy I put in place, I insist on using a fully qualified inventory clerk - yes, sometimes our clients choose to save money and do their own, and yes sometimes it goes without a hitch and they escape any bad weather - but it's a risk I certainly wouldn't take if I had the option, and in the property game where risks should be eliminated, it would seem counter intuitive to adopt more exposure.

So there we are, don't be an inexperienced lion tamer - and don't let pride come before a fall (sorry, that was a terrible pun) - it's only going to cost you money if you don't use a professional, and for the sake of less than £150.00, that's not a lot to protect you from deposit disputes at the end of your next tenancy.

Precedent set as letting agent loses referencing court case

I've just read a really interesting article by Warren Lewis from Property Reporter that should be of significant interest to Landlords regarding the level of references undertaken by agents when submitting tenants to a property.

What I find interesting, and yet deeply saddening, is that this is rife throughout the industry - the agent in this instance clearly believes that they can just sit back and let a third party company do all of the checks and they needn't lift a finger, but the comedy in all of this is that the agent is the responsible party who is supposedly a professional offering an often expensive service to landlords.

Is your letting agent checking your tenants thoroughly, or will YOU be left with an £8000 bill and a court case to fight?  Don't be the loser, use somebody who does it properly - if not, you've only got yourself to blame for not checking out the agent you picked.

Bigger isn't always better, in fact it almost always guarantees that the jobsworth handling your property won't have the experience, knowledge or care enough to thoroughly check things with attention to detail to filter out dodgy tenants who know their way around the system.