to think that renters get a raw deal

[Catza]

I am in a quite an interesting position as I am currently buying a house but need to rent in the meantime.
I noticed that the treatment of renters by EAs is vastly different from buyers. Nothing about my circumstances changed: my earnings are the same, my savings are the same, I have the same job and I am the exactly same person. Yet.. when I contact EA to view a property, they are polite and helpful. When I contact one to enquire about a viewing of rental, they treat me with high suspicion, write almost confrontational emails with a long list of demands and generally make me feel like a second class citizen.
OpenRent which I have used many many time in the past has done downhill massively as well. Landlords who book viewings but don't provide property address and then disappear. Many are "away next week" and promise to get back to me, then ghost even after chasing. This morning, I had to report yet another landlord to OpenRent for failing to respond.

If anyone has been in a similar situation, did you feel this too? Or am I being a bit too sensitive due to normal house buying stress?

AIBU = I have never experienced this myself
AINBU = yes, I also feel like I am being treated poorly as a renter by EA at the enquiry stage.

My landlord insurance doesn't allow for a tenant to leave the property empty for more than two weeks so wouldn't cover any damage.

I’m in the same situation as @WestEaste and have not surprisingly found EA to be fine. I’m not in London but when the EA tells you about the minimum income to apply for a property they’re trying to exclude people they perceive will cause damage to it. Which is completely incorrect. It’s prejudice. But it does work to my advantage and they can be exceptionally nice if they think they’ve got a good high earning tenant who sounds articulate and professional, with references who will pass the credit checks. It means they can turn everyone else down and their job is easier.

However my friend was just selling her very large family home and the first EA took 6 weeks and a ridiculous number of calls to just list the property and she had no viewings. Changed to another EA and it was live in 2 days and sold within a week.

There are good and bad people in all professions.

Whether or not you have insurance doesn’t change your liability

you also have ridiculously crap insurance if it doesn’t cover the resident going on a 2 week holiday, which is perfectly standard.

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!)

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.

"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.

Me too which is why I used OpenRent extensively in the past. But now it's the same story there. One guy sent up an automated message which asked me to provide answers to 20 very personal questions, that was even before speaking to me about viewings. He then proceeded to I crease the price by £200 per month because I stated that I want a short term let and he normally does long term. I had to politely point out that his advert states min 1 month tenancy and he may want to review that to reflect what he is actually looking for.
Two landlords offered a date for viewings and never sent property details.
Three just ghosted after a couple of messages which I had to report to OpenRent.

I don't know where else to go to find private landlords directly. I might just stay living on a holiday resort where they are actually very nice to me and not worry about saving a few quid.

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.

You are of course, right

This hits the nail on the head.

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'.

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.

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."

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)

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.

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

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

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.

This.

@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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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?