I should add to this that, despite the irritations (allowing rent now without landlord consent, credit check quality and size of price increases), I feel it’s only fair to add some positives:
Open rent really is a fantastic platform - the whole process, the portal used to store documents etc is very good. I also love how, when a new tenancy starts, you serve “How to Rent” you register the deposits etc - all these things massively reduce headache and I have to say is a god send. So, while I’m moaning about price increases, I do need to appreciate the hassle you save me at the same time! I would just prefer the increases to be more gentle as it’s hard enough making a profit for all of us.
Please, there are so many comments on this in these forums. Simply put, I lay out detailed screening questions. I wont consider anyone who hasn’t made a solid effort responding, as this is a foretaste of our future relationship. Last time i had about 90 enquiries, one completed the screening questions in full and correctly. VM throws confusion into the process. Many are utterly inappropriate “great flat mate, i’m having it!”. But worst is it confuses tenant. By leaving a VM, they think they have made a valid response. But because they haven’t addressed any of my screening questions, then I consider it unqualified for my consideration. I’ve never progressed to even a viewing with anybody who has left a VM. Maybe i am missing out on some good people, but first impressions count, and by allowing a form of communication that completely bypasses the structure of screening questions those tenants never get a chance and must wonder why. I believe it’s a lose lose for you.
Good question, this has been part of our internal discussion about parties leaving feedback for one another. Our referencing process is intended to be the best form of “tenant rating” as you can find out from a tenant’s previous landlord how they treated the property and whether they paid rent on time.
The last thing we want is to prevent a tenant from being able to find a home (or a landlord from finding a tenant) so this is a sensitive area which requires a lot of thought.
Of course if you have further thoughts or suggestions on this specifically do let us know!
The guides and the forum posts about legislative changes are very good, but I suspect that only a tiny proportion of landlords using the site look at them. From answering many posts of on this and other forums it appears to me that many landlords think that using Openrent and especially the RentNow service is just a cheaper alternative to a l o c a l a g e n t. Basically a let and forget service. Some time ago I posted a list of some of the additional areas of managing a tenancy that I think that landlords should heed if they intend to stay compliant. I haven’t used RentNow, so perhaps you already do something similar, but otherwise maybe at the end of the process you could highlight some of the other things they need to think about or get support with.
Problem is if a landlord wants to get rid of a bad tenant they can give a glowing report , likewise if a tenant is miffed with a landlord they can slag him off. Dishonesty and duff reviews are rife over the internet . How can you sift the wheat from the chaff? Not possible in my view
Once again, thanks everyone for the engagement here. Some real pain points have been highlighted. I’ve provided responses where I can, there are certain things I can’t comment on in the interests of business protection. Rest assured, everything has been read and taken on board for consideration or further research.
I’ll close this thread soon as it’s already quite noisy - but as always you are welcome to suggest things or raise issues using the “OpenRent Chat” category.
We love hearing from you so looking to run some similar exercises again, perhaps more focussed on specific areas such as referencing.
Don’t take the entire listing down when an unauthorised holding deposit is placed, often by a tenant that hasn’t even viewed or have suitable move in dates. I understand you’re trying to promote the Rent Now side, but please have it only for tenants ticked by the landlord based on viability and with a viewing completed. If you you expect the tenant to ask permission then this shouldn’t be any different. We can’t be online every second to refund and reinstate the listing.
I realise that the button is to try incentivise the use of this service, however, it will not force a landlord to start using it, it just annoys them and disappoints the tenant so I don’t understand how it actually benefits anyone. A tenant would lose faith in its function (and openrent itself).
See Sajni comment above. The forums have many similar examples.
Why not change function slightly so that when tenant presses button the landlord is notified that tenant wants to place a deposit, but the landlord has to approve the request before being able to do so? The service is still clearly promoted and removes the uncertainty and expectations for the tenant.
Absolutely. It makes sense for a property to only be taken off the market once the landlord “accepts” a rent now application (as Sajni has also stated above).
The person paying the deposit should receive a notification stating something like “We do not recommend placing a holding deposit unless you have viewed the property and agreed with the landlord to proceed. The landlord has 48 hours to accept or decline your application. If the landlord does not reply, or declines your application, your deposit will be refunded.”
However it would be even better if the landlord has to approve their deposit request before they pay at all as Mark10 suggests.
1 Provide a means for tenants to upload documents for referencing. You advise against sharing email addresses but this has to be done to get the documents
2 I set up my own screening options but it seems prospective tenants are immediately asked when they want to view before receiving my screening auto reply. Turn this off as I don’t permit viewing until I have basic information