What's in a name? Should the term "landlord" be replaced? Sean Hooker takes a deep dive into the attitudes towards towards landlords and agents, how they perceive tenants - and whether a rebrand is needed.
I was very interested to read the results of a survey of landlords, which highlighted that the majority would prefer to be called something different. The survey echoes sentiments across the pond where the sector in the US is trying to disassociate themselves from the negative connotations of the term landlord, which frequently is preceded by the words "slum" and "rogue".
This is not a new thing, and the stereotypical image of the profession has always been there. I myself have made the very comment that the problem with the landlord’s image is partly to do with nomenclature and the ensuing connotations that the title conjures up. The terms "landlord" and "tenant" have historical meanings that suggest that the landlord is in the predominant position and the rent is beholden to them, with little in the way of return other than “quiet enjoyment” of the property.
In an interview for a Hamilton Fraser podcast a few years back, I was asked by Paul Shamplina if I was Prime Minister for a day, what law would I change? I pointedly told him that laws were not the whole answer and the dynamic between a landlord and their tenant should change from one of subservience to one of service providers and customers. I therefore said that I would abolish the names landlord and tenant. I said it a bit tongue in cheek, however the point was a serious one.
Why "landlord"?
The descriptions are frankly medieval - the lord of the land, to which the forelock must be tugged, the lowly tenant, who as the “holder”, “possessor” of the property or to go right back to the word’s etymological roots, is to be stretched or tied like with a rope or string. The concept and legal basis is steeped in ancient land law and the feudal system. Yes, English law is historically based and has a long and honourable tradition. However, in this consumer age, a lot of it is anachronistic and the relationship in the rental sector is overdue for an overhaul.
Take for example the typical tenancy agreement. A tenancy can quite legally be created without a written document. However, the law mandates that whatever form the contract, the default, where certain criteria are met, is the tenancy is an assured short-term tenancy or AST for short. Under an AST, a tenant has a raft of protections and whilst some landlords attempt to circumnavigate these rights by, say, trying to issue a licence to occupy, it is not easy to avoid a tenancy being deemed an AST.
It is therefore with a certain trepidation that lawmakers should look to change the law and refine what is a tenancy and the rights the parties enjoy under it. It is clear that the time for change is overdue and this is why the Renters’ Reform proposals are so important.
Changing lettings legislation and attitudes
Legislation and regulation has been changed frequently over the last twenty years, and the protections offered to renters in the sector are now quite extensive. However, they are not enough for tenant campaigners and too much in terms of compliance burdens for some landlords. As regular readers of Goodlord's Newsagent will attest, I am a firm advocate of new measures to close the gaps in the law and ensure the existing framework of the sector works effectively.
I want to see landlord redress introduced - an effective but light touch register for landlords and their properties - and of course the regulation of property agents. This will provide the missing links in hardwiring professionalism in the sector and ensure a level playing field for everyone. The industry wants this - so over now to the government.
None of this, however, will resolve the situation if the mentality and attitude of the sector does not change. This means that it becomes customer focused and moves more towards a service sector rather than solely seeing the industry as a conduit for investment and making a healthy amount of money.
The balance of power for tenants
The concept of putting the consumer first is not one that is consistently associated with the current market. A recent report pointed clearly to the private rented sector as not being fit for purpose, expensive, and of poor quality. Now this clearly is not the full picture and can be countered by evidence such as the English Housing Survey, where tenants consistently rate the private sector highly in terms of satisfaction. However, it is clear that the market contains a significant proportion of poor-quality operators and significant shortcomings that affect a sizable number of tenants.
Tenants, on the whole, feel they have less choice, less power, and have few options when it comes to renting. Unlike other commercial and consumer transactions, where the supplier is beholden to provide quality and value for money, this is not evidenced when it comes to renting. The customer is always right, may be the mantra for most markets and access to redress and complaint resolution the norm, but this philosophy is alien in much of the property world. Provide a service? Not in some landlord’s eyes. Take it or leave it or worse being told to leave the property for asking for things to be improved is the perceived tenant’s experience.
This is far from the generality in the market, but is sufficiently common for a lot of tenants to feel they are second class.
The tenant as a commodity
The attitude is not helped by some very poor-quality letting agents who see only the landlord as their customer and the tenant, at best, a commodity. Yes, an agent’s principal client is the landlord, and they are instructed and obligated to them, but agents also have a duty of care to look after the rights and interests of tenants. However opaque and controversial this is and, since the banning of tenant fees, misunderstood, the obligation is both legal but also good business practice.
The agent - even if they do see tenants purely as business transactions in which they supply the landlord with a tenant who is able to pay the rent and treat the property in a tenant like manner - must abide by the law in ensuring they place the tenant in a safe property and ensure their legal rights are protected. For an agent, they are suppliers and what they offer is the tenancy, so just like any trader they are only as good as their product.
At an ARLA Propertymark conference a few years back, Justin King, the former CEO of Sainsbury’s asked the assembled agents, "Why would you treat the customer of your customer badly?" You are trusted to look after their best interests and if their customers are happy, then they are happy. Tenants deal with agents on a daily basis, not the landlord, and they expect a good service and to deal with a professional set up.
The tenant as the customer
This culture is growing in the sector and especially in the hugely expanding build to rent sector. To these operators, the tenant is the customer, and they are there to serve them and not just see them as an inconvenient necessity just there to pay the bills.
The argument therefore over what to call the various protagonists in the letting relationship and whether a name is pejorative or not, may appear to be trivial or secondary to challenges the lettings world faces, however as I hope I have demonstrated, it goes to the heart of where the industry should be aiming in terms of modernising, professionalising, and enhancing the reputation of those who work and deliver the services in an essential market.
Whether by calling landlords housing providers, home suppliers or property professionals and treating tenants as the customer is a fundamental change or just a rebrand, does depend on the supporting legal and enforcement regime ongoing, however it is a key part of the understanding of what the majority of us are aiming for in making a healthy and thriving private rental sector. Get this right and "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"! (Thanks again, Mr Shakespeare).
