Letting fees. What the hell?

[retro asian]

I know someone has to pay but charging a tennant a letting fee to me is like walking into a dairy and the dairy owner telling you the previous customer took a loaf of bread for free and said to just charge the next customer for it, the landlord in effects is incures a debt for the tennant , if need to be then load it onto the rent which over a year may only be $4 a week which is better than coming up with a $200 plus gst up front, also no gst on rent so if divided between a years rent no gst incur , some peeps here have no sense of fair play

Solly, no understand...


If you really wanted to pay more rent and no letting fee, I'm sure the agent would be stoked... (if they get a % on the rent, that is)

[popelli]

I know someone has to pay but charging a tennant a letting fee to me is like walking into a dairy and the dairy owner telling you the previous customer took a loaf of bread for free and said to just charge the next customer for it, the landlord in effects is incures a debt for the tennant , if need to be then load it onto the rent which over a year may only be $4 a week which is better than coming up with a $200 plus gst up front, also no gst on rent so if divided between a years rent no gst incur , some peeps here have no sense of fair play

Sorry but their is a fatal flaw in your argument, part of the letting fee should include credit checks on the tenant to see if they are actually credit worthy, have tenancy problems in the past etc etc.

If a tenant fails this test obviously there will be no renting out to that tenant if teh prospetcive tenant has not paid up front for tghese checks then who is going to front for costs of the failed credit check ?

In your version of fair play a dodgey tenant can keep running around all the rental agencies until they get "lucky" meanwhile various landlords / agencies get stung for these application fees from a no hoper with a bad credit history

Also if a landlord is to pay for these letting fees up front they may want to recover these charges by way of stitching the tenant up for a minimum term of a year / 2 years tenancy, this is not always in the tenants interest if their situation changes and they wish to move on, I had one tenant who insisted on a 12 month lease, 6 months later they wished to move on, fortunately for them the houise was relet immediately so they didn't have to cough for 6 months rental when they had moved on, unfortunately for them the market rentals had dropped and they had to recompense me for the drop in rental for the remainder of their "lease"

At the end of the day the agency is providing a service to the tenant to find them a suitable house, if you don't like using agencies and paying these fees then don't use them

From the other side of the fence some (read most) agencies are a complete waste of space from a landlords perspective, I had one who could not find me a tenant, (he thought if the house was vacant long enough he would be able to earn a commisssion selling it) one advert in the paper and 20 applicants later I had the best tenant I have ever had, conversely one letter of complaint to the real estate institute and he got his butt kicked in a big way

[Mom]

The landlord probably ALSO pays a letting success fee along with the weekly percentage of the rent. I wish I'd become a property manager

You would be surprised just how much money you can make managing property....if you do it well. If you dont, well you will be lucky to cover expenses. It is a great business, but very fickle. People are reluctant to pay for a service that you offer, because they have been let down so often by other unprofessional people. Meeting objections was my speciality, I never missed with a pitch, then again, I actually delivered on what I said I would. I also gained a reputation with the renting population in my area as being a fair, but firm (read positively feral when required) property manager.

Apart from the capital gain if you have a mortgage there is not a lot of money in it *snip*
..........
*snip* Tenancy Tribunals are a joke, they always find in favour of the tenant even when they have blatently broken written agreements

I am picking you never had the services of a good manager looking after your properties.

I do, and dont agree with your first comment regarding capital gains being the only money you make being a landlord. If you are geared properly you will be making much more than that. I am not just talking about negative gearing here either, I am talking about equity.

If you are smart though, you wont want to be making anything on your property investments, money is better in your pocket than the IRD afterall

As far as Tribunal goes, I am sorry you have not had good experiences with them, yes they do seem to lean to tenants, but if you are armed right, your position prevails.

[Sollyboy]

Sorry but their is a fatal flaw in your argument, part of the letting fee should include credit checks on the tenant to see if they are actually credit worthy, have tenancy problems in the past etc etc.



From the other side of the fence some (read most) agencies are a complete waste of space from a landlords perspective, I had one who could not find me a tenant, (he thought if the house was vacant long enough he would be able to earn a commisssion selling it) one advert in the paper and 20 applicants later I had the best tenant I have ever had, conversely one letter of complaint to the real estate institute and he got his butt kicked in a big way

For the first bit your arguement is flawed as your saying the person who was succussful in other words the person with the good history and credit pays for the service that filtered out the shit , why they pay they have good credit and are good tenant yet they get penalised.
second the realestate institute disciplines no one really, reinz its a joke

[popelli]

I am picking you never had the services of a good manager looking after your properties.




I dont agree with your first comment regarding capital gains being the only money you make being a landlord.



If you are smart though, you wont want to be making anything on your property investments, money is better in your pocket than the IRD afterall




As far as Tribunal goes, I am sorry you have not had good experiences with them, yes they do seem to lean to tenants, but if you are armed right, your position prevails.

Agencies - yes had a few bad ones

Money made - yes it can depend entirely upon the gearing that you use

However I still stand by my comment if you are borrowing heavily to invest in rental property then most of the rent will dissappear in servicing the mortgage and the only real cash you will see is when you sell and reap the capital gains

Regards Tribunals - total waste of time in my experience, if they find in the landlords favour, the tenant is either broke or disappears and you never see any money - this happened twice

And in another case they found in favour of the tenant even though there was a clear agreement in writing signed by the tenant whom had not abided by said agreement - this decision even shocked the agency whom refused to place this tenant with any of their properties after this episode

[tri boy]

Whats missing here is an invite to come around for a KB housewarming for a BBQ and spa lol :-)

It's on the cards mate.
Today involved trailer trips and lugging more boxes.
But the spa bath soaked all the pains away, while I sipped Monteith's as the light faded through the ceiling windows. Fecking bliss.

[Mom]

Regards Tribunals - total waste of time in my experience, if they find in the landlords favour, the tenant is either broke or disappears and you never see any money - this happened twice

And in another case they found in favour of the tenant even though there was a clear agreement in writing signed by the tenant whom had not abided by said agreement - this decision even shocked the agency whom refused to place this tenant with any of their properties after this episode

Seems you have had a rum deal with them then, I guess I can stand to be corrected