Letting Agency Fees - reasonable/justifiable?

Haggisman

Haggisman

Haggisman

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
19,183
Location
Birmingham
Now while I realise letting agents are the scum of the earth, but sometimes a necessary evil, this has been bugging me since yesterday. Went to look at house yesterday, and decided to take it. Now my partner isn't working, (we have a very young baby) and so won't be contributing to the rent. I made it very clear to them that this was he case, but they still want to reference/credit check her (and charge us a further £90 for the privilege) on top of that, they want to charge an additional £75 for a guarantor reference. I assume this is in case she fails to pay her 0% share of the rent. To me this is no different to doing a reference check for an 18 year old who still lives with his parents.

So, can anyone give me a legitimate reason they are charging these, or should I just tell them to sod off?

Cheers!
 
If her name isn't on the lease there is absolutely no reason (I would actually love to hear their reasoning as I'm sure they have something...) to be reference/credit checked.
 
Their reasoning could be that they don't want unvetted people staying in a property.

I have no idea at all if there's legal grounding for them doing it. My instinct is to rent elsewhere and tell them you won't pay fees you think are unreasonable.
 
Estate agents are evil. Unfortunately I have to embrace them now I am starting house hunting. Just remember, they aren't on your side, they are always on the side of the seller/landlord.
 
From experience and other threads here that's not true... they're on their own side and screw anybody and everybody.

I'm sure there's some reputable ones out there but we don't get to hear of them.
 
When you say she's not on the lease, most letting agents from my/others experience require everyone living in the property to be on the lease, whether paying rent or not.
 
The Halk said:
Their reasoning could be that they don't want unvetted people staying in a property.

I have no idea at all if there's legal grounding for them doing it. My instinct is to rent elsewhere and tell them you won't pay fees you think are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

So what if it was a family with an 18 year old son/daughter? I find it very hard to believe they would reference/credit check them?
 
Surely they can do one or the other? They're either checking her credit history (if she's paying) [/i]or[/i] you're going to be a guarantor for her (i.e. paying for her)?

I remember when my mum, sister and I moved into a rented place after my parents split up. They wanted to do a check on my sister and I, even though my mum was paying the rent entirely. This was a problem because my sister had already had loads of money 'issues' and was bound to fail. Unfortunately I can't remember what happened, but I'm pretty sure my mum explained that she was solely paying the rent. I'm sure it was certainly only her name that went on the contract. I guess in that case she was a guarantor for the both of us and they didn't need to do a credit check?
 
The guarantor reference is completely out of the question. That'd be used if someone not living there was guaranteeing the people who were on the lease.

However I don't really know that there's anything prohibiting them making these charges - the option is there to tell them to shove it. I'm not looking to rent a property so I don't know how hard it is to find one, but I'd be tempted to tell them to shove it on principle.
 
Find another agency I say. These guys sound like a bunch of money grabbing nubs. Not that the pool isnt filthy enough already.
 
The Halk said:
The guarantor reference is completely out of the question. That'd be used if someone not living there was guaranteeing the people who were on the lease .
Click to expand...

Well, the guarantor is for my partner because we told them she wasn't earning and I would be paying it all, but I would have thought it should be either a fee for her, or for the guarantor, not both!
 
Haggisman said:
Well, the guarantor is for my partner because we told them she wasn't earning and I would be paying it all, but I would have thought it should be either a fee for her, or for the guarantor, not both!
Click to expand...

They're already charging to check you out (I assume), they don't need to do it twice. They have a leg to stand on if they say they need to check her out... the guarantor thing is utter nonsense though.
 
Dunks said:
When you say she's not on the lease, most letting agents from my/others experience require everyone living in the property to be on the lease, whether paying rent or not.
Click to expand...

If your name is on the lease it makes you responsible for paying for the property. Unless there is a clause that states person x is not responsible for paying the rent in the event that person y doesn't pay for it but then I don't see a point in that. Seems redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom