Autumn statement: Letting fees are awful, and Philip Hammond is right to ban them

Chancellor Philip Hammond enjoys a private joke somewhere in the Autumn Statement. Image: Getty.

A tragedy, in one graph:

Isn’t that awful? Isn’t that the saddest thing you’ve ever seen? A universally adored brand like Foxtons, losing a tenth of its value in an hour off the back of one bit of bad news? It couldn’t happen to a nicer firm. Perhaps it’s time for the inaugural CityMetric Christmas appeal.

Or we could not do that, on the grounds that banning letting agents fees is a thoroughly good thing, and estate agents are awful.

The move, which chancellor Philip Hammond is announcing in today’s Autumn Statement, will bar lettings agents in England and Wales from demanding tenants pay whatever fees they happen to feel like. (Those in Scotland are already barred from doing so.)

Lettings agents do have costs, of course: reference checks, credit checks, repairing the deliberate damage passers-by do to those minis in examples of what are basically hate crimes. In future, though, they’ll have to recoup them through landlords, rather than tenants.

The whiny, kneejerk, “pro-business” critique of this policy runs as follows. Any attempt to interfere in the operation of the free market will necessarily harm the weakest participants in that market. If letting agents pass their costs onto landlords, landlords will in turn pass them onto tenants. Ergo, the real victims of any attempt to stop lettings agents from torturing tenants any way they happen to feel like it will be tenants themselves.

This critique is, of course, a steaming pile of horseshit, spread about by the sort of people who have no shame about publicly announcing that they’ve not thought very hard about this and probably aren’t actually that clever. For one thing it’s obviously ridiculous. They’re banning parasitical middle men from demanding hundreds of pounds with menaces from renters whenever they have to do some photocopying – and you think that will actually harm renters? Are you high?


But no, let’s be fair to them and destroy their argument using actual logic. Yes, lettings agents do have costs. But there is no evidence that the fees they charge reflect those costs. Occasional CityMetric contributor Alex Parsons put together a report on this, available on the website lettingfees.co.uk. He found that the cost of new tenancy agreements varied from £48 to £450.

Administrative costs clearly don’t vary by a factor of 10: some of those letting agents are charging inflated fees, not because they have to, but because they can. By the time the fee is due, most tenants will have committed to their new home: the agents have them over a barrel. They’re price-gouging, and they should stop.

But there are legitimate costs, of course. Won’t these be passed onto tenants in higher rents? Very possibly – because, while the availability of property won’t change, the availability of money to pay for it will.

Even this is no bad thing, though, since at least they will be passed on consistently. At the moment it’s impossible for tenants to compare the real price of a new home, because are not shown in the advertised rent. Banning letting fees will introduce a much needed measure of transparency to the market.

There are other benefits to a ban. The added costs are likely to be more managable if paid as part of the rent, rather than in a single, upfront lump. It also means an end to unpredictable extra fees, when individual tenants leave houseshares or contracts otherwise need amending.

But if you’re still not convinced, there’s one more way you can tell that the real victims of this policy will be estate agents, rather than tenants. It’s this:

There is a reason that has happened: investors think this policy means that less money will now be going to Foxtons.

It’s a tragedy. A real tragedy, I tell you.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

To boost the high street, cities should invest in offices

Offices in Northampton. Image: Getty.

Access to cheap borrowing has encouraged local authorities to proactively invest in commercial property. These assets can be a valuable tool for cities looking to improve the built environment they offer businesses and residents.

Councils are estimated to have spent £3.8bn on property between 2013 and 2017, funded through the government’s Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) at very low interest rates. Offices accounted for half of this investment, and roughly a third (£1.2bn) has been spent on retail properties. And local authorities were the biggest investor group for UK shopping centres in the first quarter of 2018.

Why are cities investing? There are two major motivations.

First, at a time when cuts are squeezing council revenue budgets, property investments can provide a long-term revenue stream to keep quality public services up and running. Second, ownership of buildings in areas marked for redevelopment allows councils to assemble land more easily and gives them more influence over the changes taking place, allowing them to make sure the space evolves to meet their objectives.

But how exactly can cities turn property ownership into successful place-making? How should they adapt the buildings they invest in to improve the performance of the economies?

Cities need workers

When developing the city’s property offer, the aim should be to get jobs back into the city centre while reducing the dominance of retail space. For councils who have invested in existing retail space and shopping centres, in particular, the temptation may be to try and retain their existing use, with new retail strategies designed to reduce vacancies.

But as the Centre for Cities’ recent Building Blocks report illustrates, the evidence points to this being a dead-end. Instead, cities may need to convert the properties they own so they house a more diverse group of businesses.

Many city centres already have a lot of retail – and this has not offered significant economic benefit. Almost half (43 per cent) of city centre space in the weakest city economies is taken up by shops, while retail only accounts for 18 per cent of space in strong city centre economies. And many of these shops lie empty: in weaker city centres vacancy rates of high-street services (retail, food and leisure) are on average 16 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in stronger city economies. In Newport, nearly a quarter of these premises are empty, as the map below shows.

The big issue in these city centres is the lack of office jobs – which are an important contributor to footfall for retailers. This means that, in order to improve the fortunes of the high street, policy will need to tackle the barriers that deter those businesses from moving to their city centres.

One of these barriers is the quality of office space. In a number of struggling city centres, the quality of office space on offer is poor. But the low returns available for private investors mean that some form of public sector involvement will be required.


Ownership of buildings gives cities the opportunity to reshape the type of commercial space on offer. Some of this will involve improving the existing office stock available, some will involve converting retail to office, and some of will require demolishing part of the space without replacing it, in the short term at least. Without ownership of the land and buildings on it, this task becomes very difficult to do but will be a fundamental part of turning the fortunes of a city centre around.

Cheap borrowing has provided a way not only for local authorities to generate an income stream through property investment. but also opens up the opportunity to have greater control over the development of their city centres. For those choosing to invest, the focus must be on using ownership to make the city centre a more attractive place for all businesses to invest, rather than hoping to revive retail alone.

Rebecca McDonald is an analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.