Rate Your Landlord report 2012 by University of Sussex Students' Union

Rate Your Landlord Report 2011â&#x20AC;&#x201D;2012

Compiled by Indi Hicks Welfare Officer

Contents Executive Summary

Introduction

Survey Findings

PART 1: Students’ experiences of finding accommodation

1.1 When do students start looking for accommodation?

1.2 How do students find accommodation?

1.3 How selective are students when house hunting?

1.4 What experience do students have securing a property?

1.5 What are students’ experiences of tenancy deposits?

1.6 What further comments did students make about their experience of the house-hunting process?

PART 2: Students’ experiences during their tenancy

2.1 Who manages students’ properties and what impact does this have on the experience of student tenants?

2.2 How much do students pay for accommodation on average? Does paying a higher rent result in a better experience overall?

2.3 What is the condition of the accommodation students live in?

2.4 How ‘green’ are the property providers letting to students?

2.5 What other problems did students experience during their tenancy?

PART 3:

Students’ experiences after their tenancy

3.1 What are students’ experiences of the return of their deposits?

15 15

Key findings

Recommendations

Appendix A: Sussex & Brighton University Housing Code of Standards

Appendix B: Unipol Housing Code of Standards

Appendix C: Satisfaction scores for different letting agents

Appendix D: Satisfaction scores for different amounts of rent

Appendix E: Satisfaction scores for different property conditions

Table of Figures Figure 1:

When did you start looking for your accommodation?

Figure 2:

How did you find your accommodation?

Figure 3:

What were the reasons you did not sign for a property?

Figure 4:

Were you asked to provide a UK-based guarantor?

Figure 5:

Did you experience pressure to sign the contract?

Figure 6:

Who manages your property?

Figure 7: The position of letting agents based on ratings by users of ten measures relating to their experience

Figure 8:

What is the weekly rent per person?

Figure 9:

User satisfaction scores ranked and filtered by the amount of rent paid per week

Figure 10:

Does your accommodation have extensive mould?

Figure 11: User satisfaction scores ranked and filtered by the condition of the property in terms of amount of mould reported

Figure 12:

Was your deposit returned to you?

Executive Summary This report looks into the experience of students living in the private rented sector based on the results of the Rate Your Landlord survey 2011–121. It details students’ experiences before, during and after a tenancy and identifies a range of problems. These include: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

The generally poor condition of properties available; Pressure to pay immediate holding fees and to sign tenancy agreements without sufficient time to read and consider the contents: The large amounts of money required by students to secure accommodation if they do not have a UK based guarantor: A failure to meet expectations given about the condition and contents of properties and/or the terms of tenancies; Slow and inadequate problem resolution from property managers; and Issues with the return of deposits.

Overall the experience of students in the private rented sector who responded to the survey demonstrated a need for wide ranging improvements. As a result this report makes a number of recommendations on both a national and local level such as: ●● ●● ●● ●●

The introduction of greater national regulation; The further development of local accreditation schemes; The creation of a local student satisfaction award; and A proposal that the Universities of Sussex and Brighton act as guarantors for those students who do not have a UK based guarantor.

The authors acknowledge that this report only represents the experiences of those students who responded to the survey and that those who completed the survey were self-selecting. Caution has been taken as a result when making generalisations based on these findings.

Introduction Rate Your Landlord is an annual survey conducted by the University of Sussex Students’ Union in collaboration with the University of Brighton Students’ Union. The survey looks at the experience of students living in the private rented sector in and around Brighton and Hove and uses the key findings to make recommendations for how positive change in the sector could be achieved. First launched in 2009, the survey is used to gather a picture of the student lettings situation with an aim of driving up standards in the local area. This year there were a record number of respondents, with a total participation level of 1780 students. 75.2% of this years’ survey respondents were UK students, 14.7% EU students and 10.1% international (non-EU) students. 11.5% were on postgraduate taught courses, 1.8% were postgraduate research students and the remaining 86.7% were undergraduate students. Of these, 35.3% were in Year 2, 32.3% Year 3, 25% Year 1, 5.8% Year 4, 1% Year 5 and 0.7% Year 0. Survey respondents tended to be female (66.1%) and aged 18-21 (48.6%). Whilst 64.8% of all respondents selfidentified as being ‘White – British’ this was primarily due to a high number of UK students (83.8%) selecting this ethnic group. When looked at separately, EU students primarily self-identified as being ‘White – Other’ (81.2%) whereas international (non-EU) students self-identified across different ethnic groups, but with the highest response (29.4%) being from those who self-identified as being ‘Chinese’. Only very small percentages of students who responded to the survey disclosed that they had either a disability (3.2%) or any dependents (again 3.2%). We hope that the findings of this survey will feed into discussions on both a local and national level about what can be done to drive up standards in the private rented sector for students, and action to rectify many of the recurring problems highlighted by the survey results. If you’d like any further details about the survey or its findings, please contact the University of Sussex Students’ Union Welfare Officer: Welfare Officer University of Sussex Students’ Union, Falmer House, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QF (01272) 87 3354 welfare@ussu.sussex.ac.uk

Survey Findings Part 1: Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences of finding accommodation 1.1 When do students start looking for accommodation? The majority of survey respondents started looking for accommodation between December and March (36.4%) with the next most popular time being during the summer vacation from June to September (29.3%).

Figure 1: When did you start looking for your accommodation?

The results differed however between UK and non-UK students with most UK students (42.1%) looking for accommodation between December and March whereas European Union (EU) and international (non-EU) students (40.8% and 33.3% respectively) started looking for accommodation in June to September. Whilst it is not immediately obvious from the survey why there is such a difference between when UK and non-UK students look for accommodation it is likely to be partly explained by the fact that a large proportion of international (non-EU) students (38.5%) and EU students (19.8%) were on postgraduate taught courses, (which are generally 1-year in length), and were far less likely to have been living in the area prior to the start of their course. It is also likely, and is certainly the experience of the Sussex Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union Advice and Representation Centre, that a significant number of non-UK students do not start looking for accommodation until after their arrival. This is also supported by several comments in the open responses.

1.2 How do students find accommodation? Letting agents were the most commonly reported method of finding accommodation: more than twice as many students found their property in this way than the next most popular method. Many students used StudentPad, the online accommodation finding service used by and widely publicised to students

by both the Universities and their Students’ Unions. Both the Universities and Students’ Unions advocate StudentPad as one of the most advisable ways of seeking accommodation, as all properties listed are subject to the a code of standards based on those of Unipol (see Appendices A&B). Websites such as Gumtree were also a popular resource for finding accommodation, particularly among both EU and international (non EU) respondents. The remaining students found their properties either through a friend, or via Facebook.

Figure 2: How did you find your accommodation?

As may be expected, a considerable percentage of all non-UK students found their accommodation using internetbased search methods such as StudentPad, Gumtree and other websites (54.5%). This is likely to be partly explained by the fact that many non-UK students are not in the area when they start looking for accommodation, and therefore are more likely to use internet-based search methods. This is supported by the fact that 15.1% of EU students and 17.4% of international (non-EU) students reported that they did not view any properties before signing for one.

1.3 How selective are students when house hunting? 91.7% of respondents viewed their property before signing a tenancy agreement. However it should be noted that where students do not view a property before signing it is often due to them being unable to, rather than choosing not to, because for example they live abroad or elsewhere in the UK and are unable to travel. 78.1% of respondents viewed 2 or more properties before signing for one with 25.1% viewing more than 5 properties. Where 2 or more properties were viewed before signing, respondents generally had several reasons for rejecting those properties; ‘Poor condition of property’ was the number one reason students didn’t sign for a property. Other concerns respondents had included the price, location and suitability of the property.

Unipol is a charity which works nationally to improve training and standards in student housing – please see www.unipol.org.uk for further information.

Figure 3: What were the reasons you did not sign for a property? Interestingly the reasons for rejecting a property differed between different demographics; with UK students, EU students, undergraduates and postgraduate research students all being more likely to cite ‘Poor condition’ as the main reason they rejected a property whilst international (non-EU) students and students on postgraduate taught courses were most likely to cite that the property was ‘Too expensive’. The survey results do not reveal the reasons for these differences but they are likely in part to reflect the general dissatisfaction with the condition of properties available in the private rented sector (see Part 2, section 2.3) and the fact that certain groups of students may look for different kinds of properties which generally incur higher rent charges.

1.4 What experience do students have securing a property? The open responses showed that students felt they were placed under significant pressure to pay a holding fee immediately upon viewing a property in order to secure it before others. This means that students were placed in a position where they paid a non-refundable and often large amount of money having only viewed the property for a short time; before having had chance to read the tenancy agreement; and sometimes with not all potential tenants having had the opportunity to view the property. The open responses also revealed that the use of group viewings where multiple groups of house seekers view a property in quick succession contributed to the pressure experienced with students feeling that they have to pay a holding fee before the next group views the property. 68.7% of respondents reported that they were asked to provide details of a UK-based homeowner as guarantor to their tenancy. This is not always possible where for example a non-UK student does not have any family living in the UK or where a UK student is either estranged from their family, is an independent student whose family do not support them financially or where a student’s family rents rather than owns their own home. Where students were unable to provide a UK-based guarantor, the majority (31.5%) of respondents were charged 6 months’ rent in advance as a deposit3. This is a significant increase from last year’s survey where the average amount of rent requested up front from those who could not provide a UK-based guarantor was four months. Bearing in mind that the average rent paid in Brighton and Hove, based on the survey respondents, was between £90 and £94.99 per week (see Part 2, Section 2.2) this means that students who do not have a UK-based guarantor had to provide well in excess of £2,000 in addition to the usual administration fees in order to secure a property.

Looking at the open responses, some students were required to pay both rent in advance and a large deposit.

Figure 4: Were you asked to provide a UK-based guarantor? Whilst only 44% of non-UK students who responded to the survey said that they had been asked to provide a UKbased guarantor, this is likely to be because letting agents and landlords are aware that the majority of non-UK students are unable to provide a UK-based guarantor and so did not ask for one and does not therefore mean that these students were not required to provide rent in advance4. What is clear however is that the requirement to pay large sums of money in advance in order to secure accommodation whilst studying places a heavy burden on all affected students, both UK and non-UK, and is likely to be a factor in students feeling left with no option but to rent with live-in landlords (who often do not require such substantial deposits) resulting in reduced choice and privacy for those students and less housing rights, while others may borrow large sums of money from family and friends in order to meet these extortionate deposit requirements. It is also entirely possible that some students may be prevented from studying altogether as a result of the financial burden involved in securing property, perhaps even more so for non-UK students who do not have access to any financial support package and are already paying substantially higher tuition fees. Once offered a property, 90.5% of respondents took the time to read a tenancy agreement before signing it however only 54.8% then went on to get the agreement checked. Disputes between tenants and landlords/letting agents are often caused by initial misunderstandings about the various contractual obligations in the tenancy agreement and therefore it is important that students are aware of the rights and responsibilities prior to signing a tenancy agreement. Free tenancy checks are offered by both the Sussex Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union Advice and Representation Centre and the Housing Office at the University of Sussex and involve a trained professional looking through a contract prior to the student signing in order to verify that there are no unreasonable terms that the student may not have been aware of. The University of Brighton Accommodation Office also offer contract checks to students. Similarly to last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey, a significant number of students said they experienced pressure to sign the tenancy agreement (25.7% of those that answered the question) with the open responses showing that students sometimes feel pressured to sign a tenancy agreement without having adequate opportunity to read it and understand what it means.

Unfortunately this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey did not capture this data but a question will be included in the 2012/13 survey.

Figure 5: Did you experience pressure to sign the contract? Of those students who used a letting agency only 6.8% were not charged any administration fee. Of the 93.2% of students who were charged a fee; the most common amount was a fee of over £150 (41.1% of those charged were charged this amount). Only 3.9% of those charged were charged less than £50. Many students were also charged additional fees for things such as inventory checks, contract renewal and hidden administration fees including a £10 completion fee for signing the tenancy agreement and a £60 guarantor re-check. This year the University of Sussex Students’ Union set up their own ‘Sussex Student Lettings’ which is open to all students at Sussex and Brighton University and charges no fees to students5.

1.5 What are students’ experiences of tenancy deposits? There is clearly still some work to be done with regards to tenancy deposits to ensure that students know their rights: similarly to last year around a third of respondents were unsure if their deposit had been placed in the Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme (TDPS)6. EU students and first year students were less likely to be aware of the scheme, whilst international students were unsure whether their deposit had been placed in a scheme or not. Only 63.6% of all respondents reported receiving a receipt for their deposit, with 12.2% being unsure whether or not they had. This highlights that there is still a need to raise more awareness amongst students about the Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme and the importance of checking that their deposit has been registered.

1.6 What further comments did students make about their experience of the house hunting process? In the open responses the main comments received about landlords and letting agents prior to moving in related to: Misinformation — particularly outdated information on internet property finding sites and discrepancies between what students are told verbally prior to moving in (for example what work would be done to the property, what furniture

For more information see www.sussexstudentlettings.com

By law, tenancy deposits must be protected in a government-authorised TDPS. It applies to all landlords and agents in England and Wales who have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) agreement with their tenants. Where disputes arise about the return of a deposits and/or deductions made from a deposit the TDPS offers a free dispute resolution service.

would be provided and what the actual costs would be including hidden administration costs and increases in the amount of rent charged) and the reality when they move in. Pressure to sign — some agents using large group viewings to encourage competition, both landlords and agents hurrying students by saying that others were interested and pressure applied to pay often large holding fees on the spot. High costs involved in securing accommodation — holding fees, large deposits (especially those required for students without UK-based guarantors), charges for credit checks, bank referencing and other administration costs. Poor quality of accommodation available — size and general condition of properties shown to students and particularly the prevalence of mould and damp. Poor customer service — students often felt that they were treated with a lack of respect due to their student status and that they were only shown properties in the poorest condition.

Part 2: Students’ experiences during their tenancy 2.1 Who manages students’ properties and what impact does this have on the experience of student tenants? Similar to last year’s survey, most respondents found their property through a letting agent; however once secured, properties were most commonly managed by a landlord (54.3% of responses), with letting agents managing a smaller proportion (38.5%). This can be explained by the fact that 32.7% of properties found through a letting agent were reportedly managed by a landlord on a day-to-day basis.

Figure 6: Who manages your property? The differences in satisfaction levels between those whose properties were managed by a letting agent and those which were managed by a landlord was stark with landlords outperforming letting agents in all areas of their management service as follows: Helpfulness — 40.6% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 12.9% for properties managed by letting agents. 29.8% of students whose properties were

managed by letting agents rated them as being ‘very poor’. Politeness — 49.6% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 19.2% for properties managed by letting agents. Availability/ease of contact — 39.4% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 15.1% for properties managed by letting agents. Clarity of the contract — 32.5% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 8.8% for properties managed by letting agents. Quality of property — 27.3% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 10.3% for properties managed by letting agents. Speed of problem resolution (e.g. for repairs and complaints) — 32.2% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 9.8% for properties managed by letting agents. 41.0% of students whose properties were managed by letting agents rated them as being ‘very poor’. Standard of repairs — 29.5% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 9.1% for properties managed by letting agents. Value for money — 24.6% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 6.3% for properties managed by letting agents. Delivery of promises — 29.9% of students whose properties were managed by landlords rated their landlord as ‘very good’ compared to only 8.4% for properties managed by letting agents. These results show that across the board, properties managed by a private landlord provide a significantly better service than their letting agent counterparts. In particular letting agents scored very badly in the categories of ‘helpfulness’ and speed of ‘problem resolution’ and were rated as only being ‘average’ in every other category except for ‘quality of property’. The 9 most common letting agents managing properties let to students who responded to the survey were: MTM (27.2%), G4 Lets (20.3%), Homelets (18.3%), John Hilton (10.6%), Just Lets (7.7%), Property Moves (5.7%), Home Leasing (5.3%), Harrigtons (2.0%) and Choices (2.0%). These letting agents were ranked using a system which allocated points for each of the possible responses under the categories of helpfulness, politeness, availability/ease of contact, cost of agency fee/finders fee, clarity of contract, quality of property, speed of problem resolution, standard of repairs, value for money and delivery of promises made. If an agent was rated ‘very good’ by the majority of respondents on a measure, they were awarded 2 points. For ‘fairly good’ 1 point was awarded, ‘average’ was assigned a value of 0, ‘fairly poor’ was -1 point and ‘very poor’ was -2 points. Figure 7 outlines the totals.

Rank

Letting Agent

Total Points

Harringtons

Just Lets

MTM

Property Moves

John Hilton

Choices

-7

Home Leasing

-7

G4 Lets

-8

Homelets

-15

Figure 7: The position of letting agents based on ratings by users of ten measures relating to their experience

Appendix C shows a breakdown of this scoring system.The results are particularily significant when noted that the score range was from a possible 20 (10 ‘very goods’) to -20 (10 ‘very poors’). The highest scoring agent (Harringtons) only achieved a score of 3 and the lowest scoring agent (Homelets) scored -15.

2.2 H ow much do students pay for accommodation on average? Does paying a higher rent result in a better experience overall? The average rent fell at £90 - £94.99 per week (£390 - £411 per month), with 20.7% of respondents paying rent in this bracket. This is a 2.5% increase in the number of survey respondents paying this level of rent compared to last year’s survey, in which the average rent paid was at £85-£89.99 per week (£369-£389 per month). However, similarly to last year’s survey, the results this year showed that students pay a wide variety of rents, with some paying under £70 (4.3%) a week and a significant number (14.8%) spending over £100 a week. Given these high weekly rents, it is perhaps not surprising that only 39.8% of respondents felt that their landlord or letting agent provided good value for money.

Figure 8: What is the weekly rent per person? There are some very interesting demographic trends within this data – particularly with regard to international students. While only 10.3% of UK students paid over £100 per week, 27.1% of EU students and 31.4% of international students paid rents in this range. In contrast to last year’s survey where a significant proportion of non-UK students also paid rents in the very low range of under £70 per week, only a very small minority of non-UK students paid rents of £70 per week or less in this year’s survey. Lack of experience of the UK rental market may be a key factor for non-UK students, as they are more likely to be renting in the UK for the first time and therefore may not have a sufficient idea of average rent levels to ensure that they are seeking property in an appropriate price range. Many non-UK students also commented in the open responses that they were shocked at the difference in the standard and condition of the accommodation available in the UK compared to in their home country. Another demographic trend with regard to rent levels was the differences in rents paid by students in different years of study. Students in years 1-4 were most likely to pay rent in the middle ranges of between £80 - £94.99 per week whereas students in year 0, year 5 and both postgraduate taught and postgraduate research students were most likely to pay rent of £100 per week or more. There may be a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that many final year and postgraduate students choose to live in accommodation with fewer other people, which generally also means paying higher rent.

In terms of the impact of the level of rent on students’ overall experience, there are some interesting findings that can be drawn from the survey – there seems to be an inverse correlation between the level of rent paid and the level of satisfaction. How the amount of rent paid correlated to students’ experience was ranked using a system which allocated points for each of the possible responses under the categories of helpfulness, politeness, availability/ease of contact, cost of agency fee/finders fee, clarity of contract, quality of property, speed of problem resolution, standard of repairs, value for money and delivery of promises made. If the majority of students in a particular rent range rated their experience as ‘very good’ under one of these categories 2 points were awarded. For ‘fairly good’ 1 point was awarded, ‘average’ was assigned a value of 0, ‘fairly poor’ was -1 point and ‘very poor’ was -2 points. Table 8 outlines the totals.

Rank

Amount paid per week

Score

£70 – £74.99

Under £70

£75 – £75.99

£90 – £94.99

£80 – £84.99

£85 – £89.99

£100 and over

£95 – £99.99

-2

Note. Appendix D outlines the calculations and details the scores for each band on each measure.

Figure 9: User satisfaction scores ranked and filtered by the amount of rent paid per week A finding of particular significance is that students paying £100+ rent per week generally rated their experience as ‘very good’ under the categories of helpfulness and politeness, and ‘very poor’ under the category of speed of problem resolution with the remaining 7 categories all being rated as either ‘fairly good’ or ‘average’. Students paying under £70 per week rated their experience as being ‘very good’ in 6 of the 10 categories (helpfulness, politeness, availability/ ease of contact, speed of problem resolution, standard of repairs and value for money) and didn’t rate any category as being below average. There is no data to confirm the cause of these differences in satisfaction levels but it is likely to stem from higher expectations among those paying more rent.

2.3 What is the condition of the accommodation students live in? An alarming 41.5% of respondents reported that their accommodation had ‘extensive mould’ (i.e. visible in 2 or more rooms). 49.0% of respondents who reported the problem to either their landlord or letting agent said that those managing the property did nothing to resolve the problem. From the open responses mould and damp were a significant problem. Many students reported having moved into properties with a pre-existing mould or damp problem which whoever managed the property either failed to resolve or blamed the tenants for. Many reported being given dehumidifiers as a solution to the problem, but this ‘solution’ often failed to be effective and cost the student significantly in terms of electricity usage. Some students also commented that mould was just painted over with non-mould paint resulting in reoccurrence of the problem a short while later. The prevalence of mould and damp is a significant health and safety issue and many reported having associated health problems due to the damp in their accommodation. Using the same scoring system as in section 2.2 a very large discrepancy in satisfaction scores was highlighted when related to students’ experience of mould (see figure 11).

Figure 10: Does your accommodation have extensive mould?

Rank

Condition

Score

No Mould

Mould

-11

Note. Appendix E details the breakdown of these scores.

Figure 11: User satisfaction scores ranked and filtered by the condition of the property in terms of amount of mould reported

Overall, students feel that they are often blamed for pre-existing mould problems, that landlords and letting agents do little to effectively deal with mould and that in many cases the presence of mould caused damage to possessions and ill-health. In light of this it is no surprise that students in properties with extensive mould rate their landlord or agent so low in terms of satisfaction levels. Interestingly, another significant problem that was identified by many students in the open responses was that gardens were not well maintained on arrival and that whilst they were expected (as a term in their tenancy agreement) to keep the garden well maintained they were not provided with any tools to do so. This is an area of concern as it is sometimes the state of the garden that causes disputes between tenants and landlords/agents at the end of a tenancy as well as friction between tenants and neighbours. Other common problems relating to the condition of the property that was identified by respondents included the presence of rats, mice and slugs in the property, poor electrics, faulty washing machines and a variety of leaks (primarily in the kitchen and bathroom). Several students reported that they were forced to get Environmental Health involved in order to resolve problems relating to the condition of the property.

When looking at the amount of rent paid and how this correlates to the condition of a property, it is surprising to note that 67.9% of those who paid £100/week or more reported that their accommodation had extensive mould. This is 26.4% higher than the overall average. Furthermore, 44.1% of this group reported that they only had single glazing, 14.5% higher than all participants together. In addition, 51.4% of those paying over £100 a week felt that their accommodation was not well insulated and draught proof. Although this is slightly lower than the overall figure of 56.7% it is still a large proportion and is again surprising considering the amount of rent paid. Taken together these figures indicate that there is no guaranteed benefit to paying a higher amount of rent in terms of the condition of a property.

2.4 How ‘green’ are the property providers letting to students? This section was added to the 2011–12 Rate Your Landlord survey as it was felt that property providers have a responsibility towards the environment as well as to student tenants. The results are relevant not only in terms of looking at carbon emissions, but also in terms of additional utility costs to students and the standards of property. Only 34.2% of respondents said that their accommodation seemed well insulated and draught proof and only 41.7% of respondents had double glazing throughout the property. From the open responses many students also reported holes in walls, doors and roofs and inadequate heating contributing to problems with draughts and cold with a resulting negative impact on health. These conditions contribute to the presence of mould and it should also be noted that poor insulation and holes in the exterior structure of a property usually result in higher costs for heating. 39.5% of respondents who identified the energy efficiency ratings of their properties’ provided white goods did not have any with high energy efficiency ratings. This again will contribute to higher energy bills for students. Of those students who asked their property provider if they could use the garden for ‘green initiatives’ such as growing food, 49.2% were told they could not use the garden for green initiatives. This lack of willing prevents students making full use of their outside space, from increasing their positive contribution to the environment and from having a chance to save money.

2.5 What other problems did students experience during their tenancy? From the ‘open comment’ sections, the following key problems faced by students during their tenancies were identified: Poor condition of properties — Many students reported that properties were in poor condition including the presence of mould and damp, inadequate and broken heating, draughts and leaks, poor insulation, structural problems, infestations of rats, mice and slugs, poor electrics and badly maintained gardens. There were numerous comments about the generally poor condition of properties available and how this contrasted to the condition of properties available in other countries. Poor standards of communication — These comments largely related to letting agents who were deemed to either fail to provide adequate information, were hard to contact, slow to respond and/or were rude an d unwilling to help. Some respondents noted that it was unclear who they should report particular problems to whilst many others also reported delays of several weeks between making initial contact about an issue and receiving a response of any sort. Once into the tenancy, some students reported having to ask their parents/guardian to contact agents on their behalf as they felt that they were not getting an adequate response themselves. Lack of notice given for landlord/repair visits — Alarmingly, a significant number of respondents reported being expected to let the agent, landlord or maintenance workers enter the property with little or no prior contact or on occasion coming home to find someone already in the house. This is in contravention of the Landlords and Tenants Act 1985 which states that 24 hours prior notice should always be given. Students reported feeling uncomfortable and vulnerable, especially when on their own and/or when the person entering the property was of a different gender. If the person is entering the accommodation so often and at such times that student no longer feel secure in their own home, this could be interpreted as a form of harassment. Harassment is a criminal offence and could lead to prosecution. The lack of identification and/or verification of maintenance workers was also raised as an issue of concern. Houses not being in the state promised — Many students reported that the promises made to them about the state of a property before moving in were not upheld. For example, students were often told that repairs and/ or cleaning would be undertaken, that particular furniture/white goods would be provided and/or that items left by previous tenants would be removed.

Length of time taken to carry out repairs — Many reported unacceptable delays in repairs being carried out, with some fairly urgent repairs such as broken boilers during winter months taking several weeks and sometimes much longer to be dealt with. Some respondents also reported that they had to make contact with the letting agent or landlord repeatedly before anything was done to resolve the situation and that they were treated rudely when doing so. Another comment made by several students was that they were held responsible for repairs that were not their legal responsibility (for example repairs made to the external structure of a property).

Part 3: Students’ experiences after their tenancy 3.1 What are students’ experiences of the return of their deposits? Of those respondents whose tenancy had come to an end, only 28.9% had their deposit returned to them in full, while another 39.7% had it partially refunded and 14.9% did not receive any back at all.

Figure 12: Was your deposit returned to you? Women students (31.3%), international (non EU) students (46.2%) and mature students (37.5%) were the respondents who were most likely to get their full deposit back. Interestingly mature students also scored highly for not receiving their deposit back at all (20.8%). Of those who had part or all of their deposit withheld, only 23.7% felt that they had received a reasonable explanation of why this was. This is considerably less than in last year’s survey where 30% felt that the explanation given was reasonable. Even more worryingly some students reported not having received any explanation at all; others claimed to have been charged for problems which had existed prior to them moving in, and therefore felt that they were being expected to leave the property in a better condition than they had found it. Interestingly a higher percentage of respondents reported this year that they felt their deposit had been returned promptly (27.6% compared to just 19.3% last year).From the ‘open comments’ however it is clear that many students still experience severe delays in getting their deposit returned, often having to chase the landlord or letting agent repeatedly. Many respondents also reported that they felt they were being charged for pre-existing damage &/or

reasonable wear and tear, neither of which should be grounds for withholding any part of a deposit. Only 10.2% of those for whom part or all of their deposit was disputed reported using a Deposit Dispute Resolution Service7, a marked decrease from last year’s survey where 24% used a dispute service – of this small sample, over half (55.6%) found it helpful. From the open comments it appears that many students are forced into a position where they feel they have no choice but to accept a reduction in the amount of deposit returned in order to get the deposit released. Students may often therefore be prevented in practice from continuing a dispute about the amount of deposit being returned as a result of cash flow problems. Some students in the open responses reported problems caused by the use of a ‘lead tenant’8. A lead tenant should in theory be nominated by the tenants themselves but in practice many tenants are unaware of this and the landlord or agent just chooses the first name that appears on the tenancy agreement as the lead tenant. Problems arise however where the deposit is returned to the lead tenant but relations have broken down between them and the other tenants and/or there are disputes amongst the tenants about the amount of returned deposit each is entitled to receive. Overall, respondents reported that their deposits were withheld unreasonably more this year but that they were generally receiving their deposits back faster. This could be explained however by some students agreeing to deductions that they believe are unfair in order to get their deposit released rather than pursuing what they fear may be a long fight for a fair resolution. Another end of tenancy issue that some respondents raised was where the tenants wanted to renew, or were considering renewing the tenancy. Students reported that they sometimes felt pressured to make a quick decision, were often charged high costs to renew the tenancy that didn’t reflect the actual costs involved and that rent increases were unreasonably high. A question will be added to next year’s Rate Your Landlord Survey to uncover more about students’ experience of tenancy renewal.

7 8

These help to resolve any disputes about the allocation of a deposit arising at the end of the tenancy. These are required by the deposit schemes and essentially mean that one tenant is nominated to act as the tenants’ representative.

Key Findings ●●

tudents are most likely to look for accommodation between December and March, the next most popular time is S during the summer vacation.

●●

etting agents are the most commonly reported method of finding accommodation although increasingly L students, particularly non-UK students, are turning to internet-based search methods such as StudentPad and Gumtree.

●●

tudents view several properties before signing for one and are most likely to reject a property on the grounds that S it is in ‘poor condition’. Other reasons include the price, location and suitability of properties.

●●

I nternational (non-EU) students are most likely to reject a property on the grounds that it is ‘too expensive’ and yet are also most likely to be paying the highest amount of rent (£100 or more per week).

●●

tudents feel placed under considerable pressure to pay holding fees quickly in order to secure accommodation S before it is offered to others. The use of group viewings adds to this pressure further.

●●

tudents who are unable to provide a UK-based guarantor are required to provide an average of 6 months’ rent in S advance in order to secure a property with some having to pay up to 12 months.

●●

hilst the vast majority of students took time to read a tenancy agreement before signing it a significant proportion W indicated that they experienced pressure to sign with some reporting that they did not have adequate opportunity to read and understand the agreement prior to signing it.

●●

ost students who used a lettings agent to find their accommodation were charged administration fees of over M £150. Many students also reported being charged additional fees to cover a variety of extra administrative costs.

●●

third of students were unsure if their deposit had been placed in the Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme (TDPS) A with many Year 1 and EU students being unaware of the scheme altogether.

●●

tudents reported many discrepancies between verbal promises that were made prior to moving into their S accommodation and the reality when they move in.

●●

nce secured, most properties occupied by students are managed by landlords. The differences in satisfaction O levels between those whose properties were managed by a letting agent and those which were managed by a landlord are stark, with landlords outperforming letting agents in all areas.

●●

hen letting agents were ranked using a scoring system based on students’ ratings of their experience, the W highest scoring letting agent only scored 3 out of a possible 20. The lowest scoring letting agent scored -15 with the lowest score possible being -20.

●●

he average rent paid has increased from last year’s survey to £90-£94.99 per week. EU and international (nonT EU) students were most likely to pay the highest rents of £100 or more per week. Students in Year 0, Year 5 and postgraduate students (both taught and research) were also more likely to pay rent in this higher range compared to students in Years 1-4.

●●

hose students who paid the highest amount of rent generally reported lower satisfaction levels whereas students T paying rent in the lowest ranges were generally far more satisfied with their experience.

●●

ould and damp remain a significant issue for a large proportion of students with students reporting that they are M often blamed for pre-existing mould and damp, that their landlord/letting agents do nothing to satisfactorily resolve the problem and that their health is sometimes affected as a result.

●●

tudents also reported a wide range of additional problems including inadequate and broken heating, draughts S and leaks, poor insulation, structural problems, infestations of rats, mice and slugs, poor electrics and badly maintained gardens. There were numerous comments about the generally poor condition of properties available and how this contrasted to the condition of properties available in other countries.

●●

aying higher rent does not guarantee that a property will be in better condition with a significant proportion of P students paying rent of £100 or more per week reporting that their accommodation had extensive mould and large numbers of those students also reporting that their property only had single glazing and that they felt that

their property was not well-insulated and draught proof. ●●

ome students reported being given no notice or only inadequate notice of landlord/repair visits. This is in S contravention of the Landlords and Tenants Act 1985 which states that 24 hours prior notice should always be given. The lack of identification and/or verification of maintenance workers was also raised as an issue of concern.

●●

f the 10 categories measured for satisfaction students were most likely to score ‘Speed of problem resolution’ as O being ‘Very Poor’. Many students reported unacceptable delays in repairs being carried out and some reported that they had to make contact with the letting agent or landlord repeatedly before anything was done to resolve the situation.

●●

nder a third of students received their deposit back in full with most students receiving only a partial refund. Less U than 25% of those students who had part or all of their deposit withheld felt that they were given a reasonable explanation of why this was. Many students also reported experiencing delays in getting their deposit returned.

Recommendations On the basis of these findings, we have a number of specific recommendations to improve the experiences of students living in the private rented sector. Such improvements would not only be beneficial for students themselves, but would additionally result in a positive impact on the local community. These recommendations should be initiated and measured through comprehensive research, such as the annual Rate Your Landlord survey. Greater regulation of those renting out properties — We recommend that there be greater regulation of all those renting out property privately in order to elevate standards in the sector and ensure consistency of service to tenants. Ideally this would be national regulation and involve a compulsory set of standards that all accommodation providers have to abide by and standardised regulation of fees, time scales for problem resolution and property standard. Without compulsory regulation, and while demand exceeds supply, the student market will continue to be exploited. As an interim measure before full, national implementation of a regulatory scheme, we recommend that local councils expand the use of accreditation schemes and promote these to students and the wider population in order to enable house hunters to make better informed choices about who to rent from. We also recommend that local councils take a lead in enforcing existing housing laws. For example, this years’ Rate Your Landlord survey highlighted the continuing problem of student tenants not being afforded proper notice prior to visits from landlords and letting agents. We urge the Local Council and respective universities to raise awareness and assist with maintaining the obligation upon landlords and letting agents to give tenants at least 24 hours’ notice (as required by the Landlords and Tenants Act 1985 ) if they wish to enter the property. We also recommend that work is done to ensure that students are given proper notice of any maintenance worker visits and that any such workers visiting student properties provide identification. Establish a high profile local award scheme for landlords and letting agents — A local award scheme for landlords and letting agents could be established based on tenant satisfaction. This would be in addition to accreditation schemes based on adherence to a minimum level of service standards. We recommend that Sussex and Brighton University Students’ Unions work together to establish a high profile local award scheme to recognise good practice amongst property providers. In this years’ Rate Your Landlord survey letting agents were ranked using a scoring system based on students’ ratings of their experience. The highest scoring letting agent only scored 3 out of a possible 20 and the lowest scoring letting agent scored -15 with the lowest score possible being -20. If an award scheme was established property providers who achieve a student satisfaction score of 15 and above could for example ‘win’ a student satisfaction award. This would be hugely beneficial to both students and property providers.

Improve communication to prospective and current student tenants — There is a need for improved communication to prospective student tenants regarding what to look for and what to expect, especially in terms of costs and standards of property and an additional need to build awareness of the Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme. This seems to be especially relevant for non-UK students, particularly EU students, and also first year students, who are less likely than other student groups to have sufficient awareness of these issues prior to looking for accommodation. It is vital that Universities and Students’ Unions help to enable all students to make informed decisions when seeking accommodation, in order to ensure that students have positive experiences during their tenancy. Encouraging students to be more discerning customers is also likely to help drive up standards among landlords and letting agents. Improve communication to private landlords signed up to StudentPad — We recommend that Sussex and Brighton University improve their communication with StudentPad private landlords regarding the obligations detailed in the Housing Code of Standards and, in particular, regarding expectations of property standards such as timescales for repairs and the maintenance of a reasonable living environment free of hazards such as excess cold, damp and mould. Additionally we recommend that StudentPad landlords are encouraged to allow students to use gardens to grow their own food. Universities to act as UK based guarantor — UK universities can act as UK based guarantors for those students who do not have one; such as International students, EU students, independent students who are not home owners, estranged students or students whose family do not own their home. We recommend that Sussex and Brighton University establish a scheme whereby they act as a guarantor for students who do not have a UK based guarantor themselves. This would significantly reduce the huge financial strain on students having to fund many months of rent in advance in order to secure a property and would also be an attractive pull factor for prospective students when deciding on which University to attend9. Support for other campaigns — Positive change comes when people work together. We therefore recommend that students’ unions feed in the experience of students into all relevant national organisations such as the National Union of Students (NUS) and Citizens Advice who are working in areas that are relevant and builds up relationships with those organisations that will ensure that we are well positioned to influence decision makers on behalf of members. We also recommend that research such as the Rate Your Landlord survey is used to help support similar campaigns such as the housing charity Shelter’s ‘Evict Rogue Landlords’ Campaign10 and vice versa.

There is already some precedent for universities acting as UK based guarantors. See, for example, the University of York’s scheme at www.york.ac.uk/media/abouttheuniversity/supportservices/accommodationoffice/StudentInfo1213.pdf

Shelter is calling for greater local and national regulation and landlord accreditation schemes to help drive up housing standards. For more information see http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/evictroguelandlords/about_the_campaign)

Appendix A Sussex and Brighton University Housing Code of Standards The Code of Standards is used by both Sussex and Brighton Universities. It is based upon the Unipol Code of Standards (see Appendix C) and is a voluntary accreditation scheme which requires landlords to adhere to various principles and duties in addition to the minimum legal requirements.The key requirements of the code are: ●●

Current landlord/home owner Gas Safety Record (required by law and when registering)

●●

Domestic Electrical Installation Periodic Inspection Report (required when registering)

●●

An Energy Performance Certificate (required by law and when registering)

●●

A Code of Standards declaration listing applicable properties (required when registering)

●●

House in Multiple Occupation Licence (HMO) where applicable

●●

Adherence to the equal opportunities policy

●●

Deposits registered with deposit protection scheme (if assured shorthold tenancies)

●●

Furnishings that comply with the Furniture and Furnishing (fire safety) Regulations 1988

●●

A fire blanket and fire door in the kitchen

●●

Carbon monoxide detectors for each gas appliance if in different rooms

●●

Gas appliances to be checked annually

●●

minimum of one smoke detector on each floor, in the lounge and a heat sensor in the kitchen which must all be A interlinked mains powered Grade D

●●

All locks should be to British Standard with a thumb turn release on all external doors

●●

Locks to windows in basements and ground floors with keys available

●●

Adherence to repairs and maintenance guidelines

●●

Copies of tenancy agreements provided to students

●●

An inventory

●●

A rent book if your tenant pays weekly

●●

HHSRS risk assessment for nonlicensed premises.

For further details, please see www.yourstudentpad.co.uk

Appendix B Unipol Housing Code of Standards The Unipol Code of Standards is a national accreditation scheme for shared student housing in the private rented sector. The scheme is approved by many universities and Students’ Unions. The key areas which the Code of Standards addresses are described as: ●●

Clearly written, reasonable terms with no catches and no hidden costs, given in advance of signing a contract

●●

A guarantee of no demands for deposits or rent before signing up

●●

A guaranteed opportunity to view properties

●●

A copy of all agreements to be supplied to tenants by the owner

●●

Accommodation facilities and furniture to meet a set standard of comfortable living and study needs

●●

Safe energy supply and safe accommodation

●●

Undertaking repair work quickly and efficiently

●●

ransparent procedures, notified in writing to tenants, for issuing receipts, for ending tenancies and for gaining T access to do maintenance inspections

●●

The owner’s commitment to courteous, professional dealings without racist, sexist or other prejudice

●●

A starred standard for a higher amenity level

●●

An accountable framework for dealing with complaints and resolving disputes

For further details please see www.unipol.org.uk/Leeds/COS/

Delivery of promises

Total Score

-15

-2

-1

-2

Homelets

0 = Average

-2

Just Lets

-1

Harringtons

1 = Fairly Good

-8

-1

-2

G4 Lets

NB Using this scoring method the highest possible score is 20 and the lowest possible score is -20.

-1 = Fairly Poor

Value for money

-2 = Very Poor

Standard of repairs

Clarity of contract

-2

Cost of agency/ finders fee

Speed of problem resolution

-2

Availability/ease of contact

Politeness

Quality of property

Helpfulness

MTM

Satisfaction scores for different letting agents

Appendix C

2 = Very Good

-7

-1

-2

-1

-2

-1

-2

Home Leasing

-7

-2

-1

-2

Choices

-2

Property Moves

-2

John Hilton

Delivery of promises

Total Score

-2

£80 - £84.99/ week

1 = Fairly Good

£75 - £79.99/ week

0 = Average

£70 - £74.99/ week

NB Using this scoring method the highest possible score is 20 and the lowest possible score is -20.

-1 = Fairly Poor

Value for money

-2 = Very Poor

Standard of repairs

Clarity of contract

Cost of agency/ finders fee

Speed of problem resolution

Availability/ease of contact

Politeness

Quality of property

Helpfulness

Under £70/week

Satisfaction scores for different letting agents

Appendix D

-2

£90 - £94.99/ week

2 = Very Good

-2

£85 - £89.99/ week

-2

£95 - £99.99/ week

-2

£100 and over/ week

Delivery of promises

Total Score

0 = Average

-11

-2

Mould

1 = Fairly Good

NB Using this scoring method the highest possible score is 20 and the lowest possible score is -20.

-1 = Fairly Poor

Value for money

-2 = Very Poor

Standard of repairs

Clarity of contract

Cost of agency/ finders fee

Speed of problem resolution

Availability/ease of contact

Politeness

Quality of property

Helpfulness

No Mould

2 = Very Good

Satisfaction scores for different property conditions

Appendix E