Autumn Statement 2016

andicole0 said:
Won't make a difference, Landlords will have to put up rent so the agent can be paid. Stupid.
Andi.
Click to expand...
Third time I've posted this already:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38065249
A report by Shelter assessing the effect of the change in Scotland suggested that:
- Rises in rent had been "small and short-lived" despite expectations that rents would increase to cover the greater burden on landlords
- Landlords in Scotland were no more likely to have increased rents since 2012 than landlords elsewhere in the UK
Click to expand...

And anyway, "have to" put up rent so the agent can be paid? The agents get paid regardless. Charging landlords and tenants to sign a bit of paper was practically criminal. At the end of the day the end of letting agents fees to tenants has absolutely zero to do with landlords. Why are they complaining? Whether or not I pay £150 to sign with a letting agent makes no difference to the landlord, he'll get charged the same £150 anyway.
 
Scam said:
Third time I've posted this already:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38065249

And anyway, "have to" put up rent so the agent can be paid? The agents get paid regardless. Charging landlords and tenants to sign a bit of paper was practically criminal. At the end of the day the end of letting agents fees to tenants has absolutely zero to do with landlords. Why are they complaining? Whether or not I pay £150 to sign with a letting agent makes no difference to the landlord, he'll get charged the same £150 anyway.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is the assumption that instead of the letting agent getting two lots of £150 it will only be getting one so will still want the £300 from somewhere so will charge the landlord £300 ergo the landlord will want slightly more per month in rent to leave himself in the same position.

Didnt happen in Scotland (or did for a very short time) but we will have to see how the London market fares.
 
I understand the issue, but what everyone is forgetting is that the landlord has a choice about what agent to choose (whereas the tenant didn't). If the agent turns around and wants £300 "fees" then the landlord is in a very good position to simply go elsewhere. This is very true for London too.
 
I thought the shadow chancellor's response was very weak. Just the usual "Statement is crap because Tories".
 
Scam said:
I understand the issue, but what everyone is forgetting is that the landlord has a choice about what agent to choose (whereas the tenant didn't). If the agent turns around and wants £300 "fees" then the landlord is in a very good position to simply go elsewhere. This is very true for London too.
Click to expand...

That should limit increases and remove the worst of the ones who charged an excess above actually costs.

But if the total "cost" to a letting agent is say £1000 which gets charged to tennants in one form or another, they can't just not charge the landlord although it might due to competition get dropped to £900 say.
 
Greebo said:
But if the total "cost" to a letting agent is say £1000 which gets charged to tennants in one form or another, they can't just not charge the landlord although it might due to competition get dropped to £900 say.
Click to expand...
Well it's certainly going to be interesting. A letting agent's business does not exist without landlords so as far as the power goes, it's all in the landlords hands. I think agents will just suck up the loss of earnings to be honest. They'll be desperate to keep the landlords on their books.
 
Tax savings on salary sacrifice and benefits in kind to be stopped, with exceptions for ultra-low emission cars, pensions, childcare and cycling.

My bro pays for his company car via salary sacrifice...
 
RoboCod said:
Getting the Internet to absolutely everyone was not deemed economically viable for industry. Surely then the government should intervene and subsidise that?
Click to expand...

Um they've already subsidised it. BT sat on the money and basically did nothing other than really slowly upgrade small parts of their network.
 
Greebo said:
That should limit increases and remove the worst of the ones who charged an excess above actually costs.

But if the total "cost" to a letting agent is say £1000 which gets charged to tennants in one form or another, they can't just not charge the landlord although it might due to competition get dropped to £900 say.
Click to expand...

That £900 will also be spread out over 6-12 months.

Moving in rented accomodation had got a bit silly with both the deposit due as well as ever increasing fees, I saw some for £300 fees on £650 rents, and that was a while ago now. So some low income people were 'stuck' in their houses, especially if the scummy letting agent was doing 'renewal fees' every 6 months, that now should be eased somewhat.

I think it's a good idea overall, although doesn't 'fix' the fact that housing is overpriced and inflating, but other than the government building 100,000's houses what will?
 
SKILL said:
That £900 will also be spread out over 6-12 months.

Moving in rented accomodation had got a bit silly with both the deposit due as well as ever increasing fees, I saw some for £300 fees on £650 rents, and that was a while ago now. So some low income people were 'stuck' in their houses, especially if the scummy letting agent was doing 'renewal fees' every 6 months, that now should be eased somewhat.

I think it's a good idea overall, although doesn't 'fix' the fact that housing is overpriced and inflating, but other than the government building 100,000's houses what will?
Click to expand...

Banning Foreign investors from buying it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom