Is it only me (a professional property manager) who finds it ironic that casual letting is paid for by the tenant (by their letting fee) and not the landlord (who is the one actually receiving the service)?
More ironic is that the lower end tenancies often require more work to make sure the tenant is the most suitable yet the letting agent receives less for this work because we base the letting fee on a flat 1 weeks rent?
Are landlords finding it harder to get agencies to do casual letting on the lower rents as agents are choosing to only accept the higher priced rentals.
Don't get me wrong, I think all landlords should at the very least employ an agent for this part of the process - get it wrong & your insurance may well be voided (!) But surely it should be a set fee based on the amount of hours spent getting the house re-tenanted regardless of the rent?
Interested to hear what private landlords think
More ironic is that the lower end tenancies often require more work to make sure the tenant is the most suitable yet the letting agent receives less for this work because we base the letting fee on a flat 1 weeks rent?
Are landlords finding it harder to get agencies to do casual letting on the lower rents as agents are choosing to only accept the higher priced rentals.
Don't get me wrong, I think all landlords should at the very least employ an agent for this part of the process - get it wrong & your insurance may well be voided (!) But surely it should be a set fee based on the amount of hours spent getting the house re-tenanted regardless of the rent?
Interested to hear what private landlords think
Comment