to think that renters get a raw deal

Sounds like you've had a bad experience with a rogue or overly worried LL @Itsmetheflamingo because you're just LL bashing now. Or maybe you're the tenant from hell.

Tenants don’t have to pay excessive deposits now - I suggested that following your statement that LLs should expect tenants to not pay rent and destroy their property.
Undergo excessive checking - I think you would find corporate LL would carry out plenty of checks and be less flexible than small scale LL.
LLs have a right to check their properties. Why do you think the corporates would not?

The letting agent works for the landlord. They're vetting you on the phone, everything you say they're looking to see if you are a good fit for the house. Money and income are obviously extremely important, but it's not the only thing, they also want to know if you are going to look after the house, are you clean and tidy,well presented,.are you looking for long or short term. Pets, previous problems with rentals. Everything you say is noted.There are not enough rental properties,.so it's a landlord's market definitely.

Which doesn’t happen.

Whatever technicality you think you can find, there is a reality, which is they can cause damage well in excess of the deposit, and they can indeed stop paying rent.

if this is, in fact, not a problem at all, then what are we actually talking about ?

EA could therefore recommend any renter, references and checks are indeed a waste of time.
When they damage the house you can just get them prosecuted under the criminal damage act 1971 and I’m sure that’ll somehow remedy the damage.

terms and conditions in a tenancy agreement still have to be legally enforceable, and most that landlords make up aren’t (see: you’re responsible for burst pipes)

I'm not sure where to start with this one. I suppose it's wasting your time, the estate agents time, the current occupants time and possibly even the landlords time, if you look at a property for which you would not be accepted. Affordability is one issue, pets, and suitability for the property are all relevant issues to consider. Why wouldn't these be established before viewing?

I last rented nearly fifteen years ago in London and didn't find them particularly offish. If anything a bit fawny. All fake as hell, but not rude. Not particularly competent in terms of having the keys, knowing stuff about the property though. Wasn't really any more impressed when buying either. Lots of poor information.

Actually no, a rental property is not for living as you wish (including damaging it). When you sign a tenancy agreement you are agreeing to a raft of conditions including not destroying it. Tenants can be charged with criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 if they intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage a landlord's property.

The tenants who don’t have to pay excessive deposits undergo excessive checking and have a landlord who leaves them alone?

Yes, the attitude from EAs when properties are flying off the books, is very different. I well remember that superior but condescending tone they’d use to tell you that such and such a property (that you were phoning about) was already under offer.

One EA story I do like, though - a colleague’s dd, still in her 20s, had been left a substantial legacy by an estranged grandparent. So she walked into an EA and asked about a small house that was however in an expensive area, so IIRC around £800k.

The EA, also 20s, gelled hair, the usual, looked her up and down with an ‘In your dreams!’ expression. ‘Have you got a mortgage in place?’

‘No, I’ll be paying cash.’
She said his face was a picture!

@Itsmetheflamingo
They should expect that, yes
not a world I want to live in

Alternatively, they could exit and leave the rental market to professionals corporate landlords who can afford to take the risks
Who exactly do you think that would benefit?

This.

I don't know about problems ending because you can buy a house and then have lots of things that need doing to the house that you can't afford and so you suck it up.

They should expect that, yes

Alternatively, they could exit and leave the rental market to professionals corporate landlords who can afford to take the risks

No angst. We understand the risks and other people’s circumstances. We just clean it up and do the repairs.

Of course it's ridiculous. It was meant to be. But it's no more ridiculous than you saying that LL should expect to have their property destroyed by tenants and the rent not paid.
But, if that's how it's going to be, then allow LL to take proper deposits that will cover missing rent and/or pay to have their property put back into decent condition after tenants have destroyed it.

Well that’s ridiculous though isn’t it because b&q is for shopping, and shitting in the display is criminal damage.

a rental property is for living in as you wish (including damaging it, if that’s your life. After all, my owner occupied house also gets damaged occasionally)

I'm going to start taking a dump in the display toilets in B&Q and, if challenged, I shall respond: "Hey, it's the business you are in."

Of course it’s the business. Why does it happen otherwise?
the landlord has no control over what happens in the house. That’s the risk. Accept it or don’t.

and yes. That’s the business car hire companies are in too. Of course they can get insurance, which protects them to a greater extent than the type offered to landlords.

What a curiously weird take. Property getting destroyed and non payment of rent is most definitely not the business, it is a possible risk that needs to be mitigated against via various checks and references. When on holiday do you hand back your hire car with bust up bodywork, smashed windows and destroyed interiors and just say to person at the desk 'hey, its the business you are in'.

This hits the nail on the head.

You are of course, right

It doesn’t matter. You can go on holiday for 3 weeks or 3 months. What business is it of the landlord? Why buy an insurance that has an onerous clause you have no control over?

the landlord is always liable. There are no circumstances under which the tenant is liable for a burst pipe and insurance is irrelevant to liability.

"I can pay the rent"

And how is a prospective landlord supposed to know that? Asking someone to prove they have a job and regular income is hardly some onerous demand.

MORE than two weeks. The leak being discussed in this thread happened over 3 weeks, in which case the landlord would have been fully liable under our insurance which allows the property to be empty for 2 weeks.

The two rental agreements our son signed also didn't allow the property to be empty more than two weeks so we assume this was also a stipulation of his landlords insurance.

Yes, this. I've had a number of weird/rude estate agents as a buyer as well as renting. And even the ones that are polite to you are, tbh, just a bit odd, in my experience.

Even as the seller they can be a bit pushy and tbh I'm sure moan about you behind your backs even if they are polite to your face.

Also having issues with mortgage valuers at the moment - I got a call from one the other day telling me they had booked an appointment for 3 days time, who in a right mood when I told her I couldn't do that day! Surely they understand most people work and can't just be available at the drop of a hat to let someone into their house (particularly when they can only give vague 'some time in the morning' or 'some time in the afternoon' timescales!)