Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Daniel Booth · 23-08-2012, 09:29 PM

Hi Ant,

I think the problem is Connels and the like are too big to care, one man bands are too small to survive if they truly try to give first class service.

The ideal for me would be a chain of say 4 branches in one county (I can think of one in my area). the problem then is the Director could be really great, but not neccesarily aware of an individual issue where it could just be one of his junior staff have let you down.

So I guess the solution would be a medium sized independent, but with a direct line to the owner if his staff aren't up to scratch. I agree ARLA/NALS should be the minimum std, but unfortunately many shocking agents do have ARLA accreditation.

(23-08-2012 03:46 PM)Ant Lyons Wrote: I have found using an agent that is arla or Narls has made no difference. /by and large the agents don't care too much if there is a problem, they seem to want an easy life.

Glenn Ackroyd · 23-08-2012, 09:46 PM

To be in Arla, you do need to pass letting qualifications, so it creates a certain level of competency, but it does not guarantee service.

Similarly, both Arla and Nals (pre-requisites to join Safe Agent) require money protection insurance. This is itself means that your accounts must be audited to ensure client account and reconciliation standards.

All the above require systems, time and a lot of cost - So I would say definitely Arla/Nals agents are more likely to be better - but certainly it does not always follow.

This week we met with an LPA receiver who commented that Arla membership was important. They need to minimise their risk and having a badge to confirm competency provides reassurance.

Lynne Davis · 24-08-2012, 12:16 AM

(23-08-2012 09:29 PM)daniel_booth Wrote: The ideal for me would be a chain of say 4 branches in one county (I can think of one in my area). the problem then is the Director could be really great, but not neccesarily aware of an individual issue where it could just be one of his junior staff have let you down.

I'd tend to agree, if not for the fact that we had one of those (3 branches I think, all in Birmingham). The tenants they found us were OK but apart from that they were rubbish. The fact that they closed their local office and moved the staff 5+ miles away to the city centre was part of the reason for their poor service, I think - but that's not an excuse for failure to protect deposits and taking more than 3 weeks on average to pass the rent on. We sacked them and almost took them to court in the end.

Adam Hosker · 24-08-2012, 10:08 AM

(23-08-2012 09:46 PM)Glenn Ackroyd Wrote: This is itself means that your accounts must be audited to ensure client account and reconciliation standards.
All the above require systems, time and a lot of cost - So I would say definitely Arla/Nals agents are more likely to be better.

I would say definetly that ARLA/NALS agents are more likely to be spending time on bureaucracy. Rather than time spent on providing a good service to a Landlord. The extra systems and cost translate for larger fees for Landlord or less available resources for the agent.

Dodgy

Not saying ARLA/NALS agent provide less quality service than None Regulated agents. Their is no guarantee they are more likely to be better.

I say this as a none ARLA/NALS member, give it a few months until I contradict myself one sign is above door.

John Flower · 24-08-2012, 10:19 AM

Having client accounts and money protection is obviously a benefit but the NAL do not assess the competency of an agent. They don't, as far as I'm aware require an agent to know the relevant legislation or local issues.

Column 1