TDS tells agents to try and settle their own disputes

Last Post is right Mary I think it is time we called Last Post on this. Since we started exchanging either others are totally bemused, confused or bored as no-one else has posted!! Hope today went well for you if you want to continue our debate and discussions in private by all means send an email to Rosalingd and ask her to pass it to me. I still don't think you've given me one good reason why any letting should not by Statute have to be handled by a person or company authorised, accredited and licensed to do so. That could of course include private landlords such as yourself who doubtless would breeze the necessary qualifications etc. Best wishes

• 12 August 2010 19:08 PM

Industry Observer You make my case better than I do when you say “because I personally do not care whether or not agents, including my own company, take on more Landlords or not. I'd like them to but it makes no difference to my income. Private Landlords on the other hand have a vested interest in being allowed to let privately”
Private landlords do indeed have a vested interest and we do indeed care and that is exactly why we are entitled to make a business decision to manage our own property lettings or to find a good Agent to do so on our behalf.
I have borrowed a lot of money during my business life but I would not say that this “experience” qualifies me to judge how well the Financial Services Industry is run nor to make sweeping statements about those who earn their living in that business.
I didn’t take your comments personally just as a slight against those in my business, including myself, who do a good job. I shall be away from my pc all day tomorrow, facilitating a seminar for landlords who have paid to learn, and I could not let your last post go unanswered.

• 11 August 2010 21:33 PM

Deary me Mary touched a raw nerve. Didn't mean to and my comments are general at the entire private landlords renting, not you. Experience? I have been in financial serices in one form or another for 41 years. Almost 24 years ending as a very senior manager for a very large building society and now 17 years for a very large national lettings ciompany. I have no axe to grind, no position to defend or promote Mary because I personally do not care whether or not agents, including my own company, take on more Landlords or not. I'd like them to but it makes noi difference to my income. Priovate Landlords on the other hand have a vested interest in being allowed to let porivately. I too will not bandy words I wish you well in your obvious crusade

• 11 August 2010 19:09 PM

Industry observer. I will not take the bait on your very rude and inaccurate remark about Landlords like myself who manage our own property.
The very fact that you draw a comparison between a car and a home shows your total lack of understanding of the business of property letting. A good property manager, whether that is the Landlord or an Agent, uses skilled contractors who are themselves highly trained to carry out the job at hand, to maintain the property and carry out the necessary safety checks. I won’t bandy words with you but one word you might want to look up is “Management” you will find it has an entirely different definition to the word Maintenance or even the word Repair.
I choose my words carefully and yes “self interest” is key to the motivation of most animals, including human beings, and I don’t think we need Maslow to explain that.
It’s a pity that you have chosen not to declare your interest in, or experience of, this business. I have spent most of my adult life working to make the private rented sector a good place to live and I will continue to do so because it is so important to the wellbeing of those people who live in our properties and for the community and the country. I am paid by rent cheques but they have long since ceased to be the main reason I stay in this business. Some of my tenants have been with me for years, some come and go but all know that I care about their well being and after all these years I have never had one single tenant who has left me on bad terms or who would not say that my properties were kept up to a very high standard.
I am now a touch tetchy because you have disrespected the good work that I and many of my colleagues do. Those Landlords who get it wrong need education not legislation. I agree that we should all be working to a recognised Code of Conduct and those who fail to do so should not be allowed to continue to let and/or manage property. We will never move forward if people continue to judge us all by the worse. There are many, many successful tenancies and the low number of complaints made to MyDeposits supports this. In her review, in 2008, Julie Rugg said “Most tenancies end when the tenants are happy they should come to an end” With increasing numbers of people renting rather than buying and more homeless than local authorities can house Landlords need to encouraged to invest in more property and that does not mean legislation that forces them to hand over control of their business and investments.

• 11 August 2010 16:00 PM

Mary with all due respect Landlords only try to manage properties themselves for one other basic human need - money. Glad you are familiar though with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs but you miss my point. Let us suppose your car needs an MoT, or you need surgery, or you want to take out a pension or maybe you have a pet that needs treating? Or any one of 101 other needs you have. I cannot serve them - why, because I am not authorised to do so. But meet me down the pub Friday night and you can take money off me and put me into a death trap - you think that's a good thing? Yes there are good Landlords, of course there are. Self interest unfortunately is not a great reason though to allow private landlords to exist, in fact you probably picked the worst phrase you could. That's what led us to where we are with TDP (self interest groups)following the most scurrilous piece of reserarch and report writing ever, otherwise known as Unsafe Deposits and from which, somehow, Shelter, CAB, local authorities and others managed to convince the Government to create legislation. There were I believe 440 responses to the questionnaire they issued to tenants and on which the report was founded. Care to guess how many of those had deposits that had been wrongly withheld (according to the tenant respondees) by private Landlords as opposed to agents acting for them? The only time a Landlord is arguably better placed or more motivated to act is on arrears - because it is their own money they are chasing.

• 11 August 2010 14:58 PM

Industry Observer Yes I can give you one good reason. Self interest. The person with most to gain from tenants who feel respected, safe and comfortable is the owner of the property. A well informed landlord is, in my opinion, the very best person to manage his portfolio. A less well informed landlord should probably find a “professional” who is well informed to do the job on his behalf and this is where the problems begin.
Apart from being a very experienced and well informed landlord I am also run seminars on behalf of National Landlords Association and also on behalf of Midlands Landlords Accreditation Scheme (MLAS) a spin-off of the London LLAS. I have facilitated the learning of almost 2,000 landlords over the last three years alone and when those landlords leave my seminars they are well informed, they have signed up to a Code of Conduct and they will continue their learning because they need to gain 50 CPD points over the following five years in order to get their accreditation renewed. All of these landlords have paid for this learning and, as you know, there is no legislation forcing them to do it. Why are they doing it? They need to know what they don’t know so that they can keep control of their investments and when and if they use Agents they know what that Agent should be doing and also what cannot be devolved to that Agent. I open my seminars by emphasising to the delegates the importance of the job they have chosen to do – housing human beings – one of the two most basic of human needs. Those landlords who have become accredited through schemes based on education are probably better informed than many Agents, some of whom have no formal education on the subject and some of whom only moved into letting when sales disappeared. There are many different skills need to manage a tenancy than the ones needed to sell a property. One is about sales the other about service. Ill informed Agents are as detrimental to our, vitally important, industry as are ill informed Landlords
In my experience you can legislate and regulate any business but in the end it comes down to the motivation and skills of those who do the job. The more savvy tenants become the more Landlords and Agents need to up their game – a very good thing in my opinion.

• 11 August 2010 13:34 PM

My word a lot of knickers are getting extremely twisted in this thread. Let's just deal with a few issues. Julie you are quite right it is in TDS interest in theory to suggest the agent submits the dispute as then their fee rises £500 each time. But generally it is better to be on the attack than the defence and makes your claim look more confident if you start the process. Plus then the tenant has to do much more in defence than in attack - where all they have to do is stick their hand up and say the agent is keeping their money. Normal Agent - yes 90% probably does go to the tenant but what everyone forgets is why these flawed schemes were brought in - to protect the tenant's mioney. It is theirs until someone else proves otherwise. Paul - yes ADR is not compulsory it is only binding if both parties agree in any Scheme. Landlord can always refuse and go to Court (do so on a very weak or very strong case is my suggestion)and can still go to Court after if he doesn't like the ADR outcome though the agent will have been complelled to pay the depoisit out as ordered under the ADR decision. 99% of the time the Landlord will then lose in Court unless he can show the ADR decision has not followed ther Laws of Natural Justice. Some might say given the lunacy and poor basis for some decisions that may not be too difficult but I couldn't possibly comment. Mary - can you give me one good reason please why asnyoen should be able to do something so critical as house another human being privately. What is needed is two things - tough industry regulation and making it unlaweful to use anyone other than an authorised regulated agent as I think is the case in Oz for sure and USA possible? Apologies for long post

• 11 August 2010 11:25 AM

EAD Ltd: There was plenty that I could have picked you up on, but chose not to. I was giving you free advice, which I shall now expand upon.

Consider this forum as an advertising medium. You used your company name as your posting name, and blew hard on your trumpet regarding the service you provide - therefore it is reasonable to assume you saw an opportunity to get your name out to a wider audience. Then, however, you put together a post littered with poor grammar and spelling. Hardly a good advert, was it? But easily remedied, which I strongly suggest will help your business.

If you still think I was wrong, then you will get loads of new business from this and I will look (more of) a fool (than usual)!

Either way, you win. ;0)

• 11 August 2010 09:52 AM

So there you have it, Letting Agents. Mary Latham sums it up. Read, read again - and perform. Your customers are telling you what's wrong - that can't be right... can it?

• 11 August 2010 09:45 AM

Well said Mary..

• 10 August 2010 16:45 PM

To ExAgent. In agents i refer to my clients as being Estate and Letting Agents. Before we came along there inventory reports were sub standard to say the least. I am not an Agent myself so no issue of impartiality. As julie said there are many different standards in any industry, but instead of critiscing one source you should constantly be evaluating the service providers whom you have contracts with, and then hopefully you will be left with high quality providers who make up the majority in the market place. It be your own fault completley if you allowed substandard inventories to come across your desk, and then to carry on using that same firm. How was that for grammer PeeBee, still bad, okay from a blackberry i imagine

• 10 August 2010 16:41 PM

To PeeBee, if my grammar is the only fault you can pick me up on, then i am glad. Thank you for the informative reply.

• 10 August 2010 16:32 PM

If you read the prescribed information, whilst it does seem to contradict itself in places..it does say that you can opt not to use the TDS and go straight to the court option. Not that I've had any disputes but it's the easiest way of getting minor issues resolved without the threat of a TDS price hike.

• 10 August 2010 13:51 PM

I have been a landlord for the best part of 40 years. I am also a member and Regional Rep for the National Landlords Association but I am speaking as a private landlord only.

I am reading these posts and thinking “If those who are taking a fee from landlords for managing our properties are in this mess where on earth is the property letting business going”.
In my extensive experience tenancy deposit disputes happen for two reasons
1. The tenant had not been made aware EXACTLY what was expected of him/her at the return of the property. I DO NOT mean a Tenancy Agreement with 196 terms and conditions written in 6 point. Nor do I mean getting Tenants to sign a document that they have not had the opportunity to take away and read/get advice/understand etc
2. Landlords and Agents have unrealistic expectation. Tenants will NOT give a property back at the end of the tenancy in the same condition that they took it at the beginning. People rarely use something they have not worked hard to pay for with the same care as they use their own property. Different tenant groups have different quirks and if a landlord/Agent cannot facilitate the quirks they should not let to that tenant. The Inland Revenue gives us a 10% allowance for fair ware and tear and we should allow for that before we claim from a tenant……………………………..
One is a communication and documentation issue and if an Agent hasn’t got good skills in these areas I question they are “qualified” to be doing a good management job. The other is experience and, as has been said by another contributor, Agents need to get their hands dirty and check out all those who they commission, at the expense of the landlord or tenant, to ensure that they are doing the job as it needs to be done. Agents are often so competitive that they are afraid to tell the Landlord the reality of letting and prefer to put the onus on the tenant. Tenants are getting more savvy and will no longer tolerate it – why would they, they are the customers.
No one asks you to be Agents just as no one asks me to be a Landlord but if we choose to do a job and take money for doing it, as a basic minimum, do it properly.
The notation that the option to use an insured scheme should be removed from the whole industry because some, so called, professionals are not meeting the rules of the scheme is ridiculous. The insured scheme is meant to expel anyone who is not complying and their future deposits MUST then be placed into the custodial scheme because they have proven that they cannot be trusted. Those of us who have proven that we can be trusted should not be punished by the withdrawal of the insured option.
It is a great pity for both the good Agents and the inexperience Landlords that the government did not go ahead with legislation to regulated the Letting industry.

• 10 August 2010 11:51 AM

@EAD Ltd
Well there goes your impartiality if you use your own agents.
Did you manage to get APIP/AIIC accreditation - just seems funny, they do not support inventory providers who have a conflict of interest?
I'm not wholly blaming others; was merely stating that an inventory provider (whoever it is) should be providing documents which makes the route of dispute void. If they are capturing the information, and the evidence, I know its wishful thinking but there should be no bone of contention to disagree with.

• 10 August 2010 11:47 AM

I am a senior property manager for a medium sized letting firm. I deal with all aspects of the deposit process. we use TDS and have only yesterday been told that if a tenant disagrees with a deduction, 'I' should be the one to send the dispute even if the tenant is fully responsable.
of course they will say this as they charge for every dispute logged.
in the past 3 months I have dealt with 20 move out only one of which has now gone to dispute.
I agree with EAD Ltds comments and can say that our inventory company (although outsourced) is the best we have used to date, yes previous companies were tried and tested and when their reports were not to the standard required they were not used again, for us it is not all about targets and margins it is about doing the job we love the best we can and making sure out sub-contractors continue that standard.
Deposits will always be the headache of the letting industry as all tenants feel they have left a property "better than it was when i moved in" that is why an independant inventory company is used.
Surley if all agents moved to a scheme that did not charge high fees such as DPS and dealt with the deposits in a methodical and knowledgable manner then 90% of the problems would not arise

• 10 August 2010 11:10 AM

To EAD Ltd -

Whilst I don't disagree completely with some of your comments, I would suggest that if your company's inventories are as badly written as your post then I cannot imagine how they are of any use whatsoever to your Agent clients.

• 10 August 2010 10:20 AM

to Ex agent, typical of an agent to blame another party, if agents new anything about there own industry, and carried out there own assessments instead of outsourcing everything,then you would not have a sub standard provider, fortunatley for outsourced trades like energy assessors and inventory providers, agents are not concerned with the quality, only the bottom line and the margin that they can make on the service. If, agents were slightly more concerned with offering a quality service, then surely they should be monitoring and critiquing the outsourced work, and if not upto scratch rejecting it, until it is upto scratch. Our inventories have improved 100% of our agents work, and the standard was shocking before. Try taking some of your own industries lacking attributes on the shoulders rather than passing it on

• 10 August 2010 10:06 AM

@normal agent
Unfortunately the quality of inventory providers makes this happen. If there was a concise and reliable inventory provider recording the correct information with evidence then a tenant should not have the opportunity to dispute because the evidence is in black and white. Likewise, a Landlord would not have the option of making false claims. At present, inventory providers just don't cut it.

• 09 August 2010 17:01 PM

THe Schemes are fekked to start with, ARLA tried it many years ago-I've noticed that tenants are disputing more and more now they are aware...so tenant dispute and 90% is awarded to tenants,,well done Labour

• 09 August 2010 16:45 PM

100% agree with Neil.

Really pleased I decided to go with DPS.

• 09 August 2010 12:45 PM

Neil Jenkin is absolutely right and I too was totally dumbfounded when I read those comments. To comply with Statute a member firm has to comply with Scheme Rules. I just cannot believe that TDS would tolerate any member 's continued involvement if the ICE demands that disputed money is paid in and the agent doesn't do so within the prescribed period in the rules. Originally this was 5 days of receiving said demand, now I think it has been relaxed (no wonder why) to 10 days, presumably working days. This is too long and the first thing that should happen is if a TDS dispute is notified then everything else is subservient to it and the money should be paid in. Then the evidence and defence is prepared. Any member agent not complying should be terminated and, in addition, their details should be passed onto whichever regulatory body they are a member of because they are in breach of their rules as well, especially if it is ARLA. Another quite incredible chapter in the fiasco that is TDS Ltd. Neil is also dead right this would not happen with Custodial only. When will CLG see the light and reduce to one non insured scheme? Which is all that is needed - in effect TDS is saying it is a safe haven for agents who abuse deposits.

• 09 August 2010 10:54 AM

I see your point Neil. Maybe agents should learn to start saying no to scumbag tenants who would cause damage and then not want to pay for it. Stop thinking about your target sheet and start thinking about your clients interests for a change.

• 09 August 2010 10:35 AM

Ex Agent. If we can not run our industry professionally where money is concerned,the option of having the insurance backed scheme should be stopped. Alernatively the companies that wish to run one of the insurance schemes should be made to place a bond with their scheme, in order that the law abiding members are not having to pay high fees to make up the difference. Alternatively, do what I do and use the DPS, no fees and so far very easy administration. ( I have very few deposit disputes, might be lucky or I might be good!!!)

• 09 August 2010 10:20 AM

Neil, unfortunately there are members who do not adhere to the requirements of ring fencing funds and the schemes do have to step in. Why wouldn't they admit to this? They have to justify their position.

• 09 August 2010 10:03 AM

the TDS should “finish the year with a healthy balance sheet”.
That's encouraging. Ramp up your prices, ask the customer to do the work themselves and watch your profits grow. No wonder YOU got the job.

• 09 August 2010 10:02 AM

This is shocking and should be a complete embarrassment to the estate agency industry. Are the TDS really saying that they have member firms that do not have the deposits that they say they do? What are they doing about it? At best this is incompetence at worse STEALING. I find it shocking that one of the two insurance schemes would admit that this is the situation still. Are we still rogues in this industry??!!!!

• 09 August 2010 09:52 AM

No letter enclosed. Just an invoice for more money.Typical!

• 09 August 2010 09:49 AM