Letting Agents/Estate Agents - All snobby or the select few?

LadyE

Seriously, there has to be some decent ones around??

I am currently looking for a 3 bedroomed place to live in South Co Dublin, and when I have called up a few adverts on Daft,the number was to estate agents.
The way they treat potential renters is a disgrace! Not turning up to appointments, practically calling me a liar when I called to confirm appointments to view a place (arrange on Saturday – apparently no appointment was made), given the third degree about where I work, name of company, area I work in…ok, those questions are fine, but when enquiring about a house first off, and the tone of voice…like I was something from the bottom of her shoe!??

I have a good, professional telephone manner, and no strong accent, so how dare she treat me like that!!!

And also, whats the deal with charging ME €200 “Administration Fee” – Is this standard, esp because the adverts on n Daft!???

Ive also emailed about 5 different places..not one single reply…grrrrrrrrrrrrr

Can anyone recommend a decent estate agent in South Co Dub?

snellers

I don't know of any EA's in the area as not living there but from my experience I would actually go and see them in person - only then will they be sure you are serious (and hopefully treat you better!)
if there are any that treat you like crap then don't use 'em - I have used in the past a fairly 'upmarket' EA who did interrogate with regards to personal details (but only after we had expressed an interest in renting the property, which IMO is fair enough as they are looking after their clients - In one instance I had to get my workplace to send a letter stating I was a permanent employee for xx years') -

Once the hoops were jumped through though I found them to be incredibly professional - I certainly wasn;t concerned that the LL would be snooping around or coming in univited....in fact I never even met the landlord other than on the phone! There are pros and cons with these type of deals - you tend to pay a slightly higher rent, but everything is above board and dealt with professionally, when we left the property our deposit was refunded within a week back into our account as an example.

you can of course get a very decent LL - but it is worth being careful and make sure there is a proper contract, agree from the outset how the LL contacts you and the period of notice to come into property...etc - if you start as you mean to go on then you won;t get any nasty surprises (hopefully!)

**we had to pay about €150 'admin fee', which at the time seemed a cheek, but overall was well worth it due to the way they dealt with us

Victor

LadyE wrote: »

And also, whats the deal with charging ME €200 “Administration Fee” – Is this standard, esp because the adverts on n Daft!???

No. Teh landlord pays the estate agent, the tenant only pays rent.

There are some agencies out there that will help you find places though.

LadyE

Victor wrote: »

No. Teh landlord pays the estate agent, the tenant only pays rent.

There are some agencies out there that will help you find places though.

No I havebeen told I had to pay this - also to a collegue of mine.:mad:

Jo King

Estate Agents are only entitled to charge one party to a deal not both. As they are getting a commission from the Landlord an administration fee is a try on. there were some agents a few years ago who were charging prospective tenants for a list of properties. They did not even have a licence and had to go out of business. I would research carefully anybody who claimed to be an agent on Daft. Find out if and where they have an office. Call a landline to deal with them. Check that they are bonded, have an agents licence and also what professional bodies they belong to. I would never pay an administration fee.

confuzed

LadyE wrote: »

No I havebeen told I had to pay this - also to a collegue of mine.:mad:

Hi LadyE

This is another trade along with care dealers that make you sick in Ireland. Please don't feel disappointed. They try to rob and you have to be smart. Don't pay any thing, simply walkaway and remember don't put some deposit out of impulse. Deposit towards rent is almost non-refundable.

Renting in ireland is considered a poor men play and every time you rent a house you will be reminded this fact again and again. That's why a lot of people are still buying houses knowing price may fall further.

conspiracy666

Hey,

I hope you've found somewhere by now.

The answer is yes that tenants nowadays may have to pay admin fees to estate agents and they are not the responsibility of the landlord(lady). It's like this in the UK and is probably where it's been copied from.

The admin fees are a useless charge for doing reference checks, holding deposits and the legal side of the tenancy agreement for the tenant. It's a bit rich if you ask me.

I've only once used an agent in Ireland to find somewhere to live and they were appalling. Never fixed anything and referred us to the landlord everytime, even though they were supposed to manage it. If possible use daft.ie for direct contact to landlords and check out local shops for posts and also within the company you work for or companies that friends work for. I found more places that way and was much more hassle free.

Best of luck...

colosseum

I have a friend who works as a letting agent and he says tenants get off too easily. Theres a lot of hidden work involved getting the tenant their admin for the tenancy, eg. when someone moves out and the prtb has to be updated - who pays for this admin? the letting agency. Maybe if the tenant wants rights they should pay for them, why should the landlord cover these costs?
and also, jo king, where should we go to discover if an agent is licensed, bonded, or not? As far as I can remember theres nothing set up like that for letting agents.

Jo King

colosseum wrote: »

and also, jo king, where should we go to discover if an agent is licensed, bonded, or not? As far as I can remember theres nothing set up like that for letting agents.

Letting agents are regulated by the House Agents Act 1947. They must have an Auctioneer's or Estate Agents licence. The licence is issued by the Revenue Commissioners after the agent has been approved by the District Court. A bond is necessary for approval. The licence is renewable annually and a current one should be on display at the place of business of the agent. Agents are prohibited from charging fees to both parties to a transaction.

BendiBus

colosseum wrote: »

why should the landlord cover these costs?

Because it's the landlord that has chosen to have an agency do the work.

Ste.phen

colosseum wrote: »

eg. when someone moves out and the prtb has to be updated - who pays for this admin? the letting agency. Maybe if the tenant wants rights they should pay for them, why should the landlord cover these costs?

Why should the landlord / their appointed agent take the time to fulfil their legal obligations with regard to being a landlord?

...

jmayo

colosseum wrote: »

I have a friend who works as a letting agent and he says tenants get off too easily. Theres a lot of hidden work involved getting the tenant their admin for the tenancy, eg. when someone moves out and the prtb has to be updated - who pays for this admin? the letting agency. Maybe if the tenant wants rights they should pay for them, why should the landlord cover these costs?
and also, jo king, where should we go to discover if an agent is licensed, bonded, or not? As far as I can remember theres nothing set up like that for letting agents.

Ah the poor letting agents and the poor Estate agents.
I feel so sorry for them.

To roughly quote Ed Byrne on BBC comedy program "look at the bright side of the recession and decreasing houses prices, there will be thousands of Estate agents out of work".
Got the biggest cheer of the night, due to the fact they have been screwing people, both sellers and buyers, both landlords and tenants, for years.
It's about time some of them learnt a little manners, humility and not to mention ethics.

colosseum

Jo King, This is true in the case of an estate agent, not a letting agent. There is a body being set up which will be official in November - the Nprsa.
I agree the landlord must come up with the cash to provide the managing agent with the means needed to accomodate a tenant staying at their property. What happens when a tenant starts taking the piss though? That money the landlord has budgeted for the running of their house or whatever goes kapoot. Look at the case of the tenant who wont move out on time - managing agent wastes resources trying to resolve it whilst losing the business of the landlord who is now probably seriously in debt from no rent coming in and ends up having to sell the house. All because of one arsehole tenant who could go on to lie his way in to another property. Why does the tenant have so many rights? And why is it rubbed in the landlords nose paying for their rights?Legal or not its wrong.
Also rents are down and places are sitting idle, the tenant has a great deal.. at some point somebody has to pay for the administration. What will happen is the smaller agents will fizzle out leaving the bigger estate agents with all the reliable contracts to charge what fees they like. Its not good for business.

markpb

colosseum wrote: »

I agree the landlord must come up with the cash to provide the managing agent with the means needed to accomodate a tenant staying at their property. What happens when a tenant starts taking the piss though? That money the landlord has budgeted for the running of their house or whatever goes kapoot.

That's what is called the risk of business. What if the boiler breaks and the landlord has to spend hundreds of euro getting a new one? They're not guaranteed to make a profit.

Why does the tenant have so many rights? And why is it rubbed in the landlords nose paying for their rights?Legal or not its wrong.

The opposite was true for a long time and it meant people could not be secure in their homes. The last word is the most important - the state (rightly) gives more priority to a persons home than it does to making a profit.

Also rents are down and places are sitting idle, the tenant has a great deal.. at some point somebody has to pay for the administration. What will happen is the smaller agents will fizzle out leaving the bigger estate agents with all the reliable contracts to charge what fees they like. Its not good for business.

I'm not sure if you're a landlord or letting agent, maybe a bit of both. Both of those groups have made huge money during the boom period. Now things have changed and the market is adjusting. Some people will make a loss, others will lose their jobs, that's what happens when markets enter a downturn. I'm not gloating about this, it's just a fact of life - markets are cyclical.

SimpleSam06

colosseum wrote: »

eg. when someone moves out and the prtb has to be updated - who pays for this admin? the letting agency.

Yeah, thats a terribly expensive minute and a half of work filling out a form letter and posting it.

colosseum wrote: »

Why does the tenant have so many rights? And why is it rubbed in the landlords nose paying for their rights?Legal or not its wrong.

Tenants rights in Ireland are appalling, especially compared with other European countries. We even have a charity to help tenants out. Its a disgrace that you had the neck to come in here and openly make a statement like that.

SimpleSam06

colosseum wrote: »

Simple sam dont accuse me of "having the neck" to come in here. Its a discussion if you cant contribute then piss off.

If you're coming in here complaining that tenants in Ireland have too many rights, I suggest you contact Threshold and let them know your opinions, and see how far you get there.

If your business model is flawed, don't blame the marketplace. If you can't make enough money doing what you do, if you can't account for all of these irregularities that apparently cost so much, if your only answer is to reduce the already dickensian rights of tenants in Ireland, remember, you have no constitutional right to a profit.

The instability of tenancies contributed to the property bubble, since people who had families but no security of tenure were more inclined to try to buy a house that may or may not have been within their means, rather than risk being turfed out on the whim of a landlord.

Complaining about the big fish surviving while smaller fish go under is pointless; its the exact same in any field of business. Little fish in any business can be put out of work by non paying customers. Also, the big fish were little fish once too.

Your post seems to have vanished now, for some reason.

Jo King

colosseum wrote: »

Jo King, This is true in the case of an estate agent, not a letting agent. There is a body being set up which will be official in November - the Nprsa.

Not correct. There are agents around Dublin who traded for a number of years without realising they needed a licence. Any agent involved in the selling and/or letting of property is governed by the House Agents Act. The new body is going to take over the functions of the District Courts for Auctioneer and estate Agents licences. there is no such thing as a letting agent simpliciter. They must have at least an estate agents licence to trade.

colosseum

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by colosseum
I agree the landlord must come up with the cash to provide the managing agent with the means needed to accomodate a tenant staying at their property. What happens when a tenant starts taking the piss though? That money the landlord has budgeted for the running of their house or whatever goes kapoot.

[HTML]column 1|column 2|column 3[/HTML]"
Risk of business? What about if a tenant, through maliciousness or stupidity keeps causing the landlord the cost of fixing the boiler and it cant be proven that the tenant was at fault. Of course theres a risk of business but the landlord is hardly covered in any way for this. Whats the point of being in business if there is no profit, at least to cover a potential risk?

"
Quote:
Why does the tenant have so many rights? And why is it rubbed in the landlords nose paying for their rights?Legal or not its wrong.
The opposite was true for a long time and it meant people could not be secure in their homes. The last word is the most important - the state (rightly) gives more priority to a persons home than it does to making a profit.
"
Well again that is biased. If a landlord lets his home to a tenant who abuses the lease, doesnt pay rent etc, and the landlord ends up in debt and in a situation where they must sell the house..the tenants home is priority?

Letting agents have always been in the same situation regardless of a boom. Estate agencies would have made money yes through sales. There is a difference. A letting agency usually offers Landlord services only, and are a smaller operation than Estate agencies.
Joking as Ive said previously I am not a letting agent, no, I have a friend who is, and we have chatted a good bit about dodgy tenants. I have had experience letting a house for someone for the past 3 terms.
Simplesam maybe I should have asked before I was allowed to voice my opinions. The instability of tenancies contributed to the property bubble? I dont agree, at all. People got a bit better off, bought into the craze, and decided to mortgage. To be honest I think the difference in opinion on tenant rights seems to be that my dealings have been better and more down the line. It seems you are used to dealing/hearing about scumbag landlords who dont give out leases and leave tenants without water and power over Christmas, usually in the poorer areas. You pay for what you get, and I would always disagree with that type of landlord. I hope I never have to live somewhere like that.

uberwolf

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its a disgrace that you had the neck to come in here and openly make a statement like that.

Ah come on. Right or wrong, people have a right to express an opinion.

Jo King

colosseum wrote: »

"
Quote:

Letting agents have always been in the same situation regardless of a boom. Estate agencies would have made money yes through sales. There is a difference. A letting agency usually offers Landlord services only, and are a smaller operation than Estate agencies.
Joking as Ive said previously I am not a letting agent, no, I have a friend who is, and we have chatted a good bit about dodgy tenants. I have had experience letting a house for someone for the past 3 terms.

Letting agents must have either an auctioneers or an estate agents licence. The fact that they do not choose to offer the full range of services is irrelevant. I never said you were a letting agent.
From the Auctioneers and House Agents Act 1947:-

"the expression "house agent" means a person who, as agent for another person and for or in expectation of reward, purchases, sells, lets or offers for sale or letting, or invites offers to purchase or take a letting of, or negotiates for the purchase, sale or letting of a house otherwise than by auction or attempts to effect such purchase, sale or letting;


the expression "house agent's licence" means a licence, under section 10 of this Act, to carry on the business of house agent;


the word "licence" means an auctioneer's licence or a house agent's licence;

.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, no person shall, on or after the operative date, carry on or hold himself out or represent himself as carrying on the business of house agent or act as a house agent except under and in accordance with a licence under section 10 of this Act.

From the Auctioneers and House Agents Act 1973:

2.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any provision (whether express or implied) in an agreement entered into after the commencement of this Act and relating to the sale, lease or letting of property (not being personal chattels), whereby the purchaser, lessee or tenant is required to pay or bear the cost of auctioneers' or house agents' fees or expenses in respect of the sale, lease or letting, shall be void, and any moneys paid under or on foot of such a provision shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

SimpleSam06

colosseum wrote: »

The instability of tenancies contributed to the property bubble? I dont agree, at all. People got a bit better off, bought into the craze, and decided to mortgage.

I didn't say it was the only factor. It was a contributing factor, however, and one which affected the most vulnerable sections of society, those with young families.

colosseum wrote: »

To be honest I think the difference in opinion on tenant rights seems to be that my dealings have been better and more down the line.

If you want to see a definition of strong tenants rights, go somewhere like Germany, where long term tenancy is a lot more the norm than here.

colosseum wrote: »

It seems you are used to dealing/hearing about scumbag landlords who dont give out leases and leave tenants without water and power over Christmas, usually in the poorer areas. You pay for what you get, and I would always disagree with that type of landlord. I hope I never have to live somewhere like that.

Its not just the bad landlords, its the legislation itself and social structure. The last time I had occasion to contact the PRTB, they never even bothered answering. If all was well bar enforcement, why would we need a charity to assist tenants in bad situations?

You can be turfed out of a place you have been living for years on seven days notice if the landlord says he wants to sell the place and claims he feels intimidated by your manner.

This is not something that just affects people in slum tenements, despite what you seem to think.

uberwolf wrote: »

Ah come on. Right or wrong, people have a right to express an opinion.

If you had seen some of the wreckage created by landlords that I have, you wouldn't be too quick to say that. I can quote directly a former threshold employee I was chatting to the last day (not in a professional capacity) - "Irish landlords are the biggest crowd of gangsters anywhere. Most of these lads you may as well kiss your deposit goodbye the minute you hand it over, and theres not a thing anyone can do about it."

Obviously, I have no link to back that up.

Electrical cables patched over to adjoining buildings, illegal entry to an apartment filled with young female students, theft of private property, and this is just some of the stuff I have seen personally. There is a serious human cost associated with these situations, and anyone coming in talking about reducing tenants rights either has no concept of the reality of the situation, or is beating a drum for the wrong side.

I'm not saying all tenants are angels and all landlords bad, of course not. But the books aren't exactly balanced.

seahorse

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Electrical cables patched over to adjoining buildings, illegal entry to an apartment filled with young female students, theft of private property,

...walls so damp putrid stinking liquid was literally running down them; associated stink so bad you had to use plug in airfreshnes 24/7; armies of woodlice infesting an extension apartment-slash-sh!thole. God, I could go on, but I wont bother. I've been renting for seventeen years in this city and some of the things I've seen would just turn your stomach.

Obviously there are decent landlords, I’ve been lucky enough to encounter those too; but I’ve rented from such a disproportionate amount of quick-buck merchants that in general I have NO sympathy for landlords anymore, to be honest.

Supercell

If any agent tried to charge me for the privilege of rending a gaff I'd have no hesitation telling them where to go.
Also the snobby attitude from that person is just stupid, I bet the landlord wouldnt be too happy to hear his agent is acting the bollix like this and delaying renting his property.

They get their pound of flesh from the landlord, charging the tenant extra is taking the piss altogether.
The supply of rentals is more than DOUBLED since the same time a year ago, there is NO SHORTAGE of gaffs to rent..take your business elsewhere.

colosseum

Well all in all I think its fair to summarise having this third party agent is better for the tenant, in that everything is done by the book, upholding their rights. Its the length of time resolving landlord tenant disputes that is the problem. Maybe the PRTB are not strong enough.

faceman

colosseum wrote: »

Well all in all I think its fair to summarise having this third party agent is better for the tenant, in that everything is done by the book, upholding their rights. Its the length of time resolving landlord tenant disputes that is the problem. Maybe the PRTB are not strong enough.

I'm a landlord and I disagree with your comments. There is nothing to stop me shafting a tenant if I want to as the law is quite loose on tenants rights. My experience with EA's and LA's is that many of them are overglorified administrators. They should be vetting prospective tenants appropriately. Many do not.

Gareth37

confuzed wrote: »

Hi LadyE

This is another trade along with care dealers that make you sick in Ireland. Please don't feel disappointed. They try to rob and you have to be smart. Don't pay any thing, simply walkaway and remember don't put some deposit out of impulse. Deposit towards rent is almost non-refundable.

Renting in ireland is considered a poor men play and every time you rent a house you will be reminded this fact again and again. That's why a lot of people are still buying houses knowing price may fall further.

Some good points there. The fact is that banks own most of the property in ireland, not people.

Agreed with the sentiment that most estate agents/auctioneers are brainless scum. :pac:

colosseum

Faceman, I am a tenant myself. I know what being a tenant means. For starters it means great freedom of choice in where to live and in breaking a contract willy nilly. I also understand I may have to pack my things and find a stopgap in a short timeframe. This is a tenancy. I consider myself a good tenant and expect to be treated with respect until I do something to lose it. My point being tenants should know what they are in for from the off, its their own ignorance otherwise.

jesus_thats_gre

Been renting in Dublin 18 for 4 years now and have had no problems dealing with anything up to 10 different agents.

SimpleSam06

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Been renting in Dublin 18 for 4 years now and have had no problems dealing with anything up to 10 different agents.

So you moved house every four or five months on average? :eek:

jarvis

colosseum wrote: »

Well all in all I think its fair to summarise having this third party agent is better for the tenant, in that everything is done by the book, upholding their rights. Its the length of time resolving landlord tenant disputes that is the problem. Maybe the PRTB are not strong enough.

I support all the comments you've made in this thread.

ZYX

colosseum wrote: »

"
Quote:?


Well again that is biased. If a landlord lets his home to a tenant who abuses the lease, doesnt pay rent etc, and the landlord ends up in debt and in a situation where they must sell the house..the tenants home is priority?

I think this is the problem with most landlords in Ireland. A landlord does not "let his home". A landlord lives in his home. He rents out a second (or more) property to a tenant. This second property then becomes the tenants home.