Letting Agents v Recruitment Agents

[JRCT]

I was watching some Watchdog type programme a while back and a letting agent had been taken to court because he was charging his tenants 1000s for repairs that he was only being invoiced 50-100 quid for.

He'd been doing it for years and amassed over a quarter of a million in this type of overcharging.

Is this not the same as what we all accept as the norm from recruitment agents?

I rent a house out and each month I get an invoice from the agent telling me how much rent my tenant has paid, less the agency's 10% fee. This is totally transparent. I can see what the other side are paying, what the agency are taking and what I'm getting.

Why can't recruitment agencies be forced to comply to this level of transparency? The good ones would have nothing to fear and the bad ones would be sorted out pronto.

Surely, this would be in the interests of all contractors and clients, whether they are sme, local government or large multi-nationals.

I really don't understand how it's allowed to happen and why all clients and contractors just accept it.

[northernladuk]

Completely different animals so the comparison is worthless.

[JRCT]

Completely different animals so the comparison is worthless.

I disagree. They're a go between. That's their purpose. Exactly the same, just a different product area.

[northernladuk]

One is b2b. The other isn't. Different animals.

[JRCT]

One is b2b. The other isn't. Different animals.

If your business was letting an office or warehouse you would have, and expect, the same transparency as letting a house. Not the same muddled up, potential con tricks of a recruitment agent.

By saying it's different, you're just allowing it to happen. It's like a battered wife saying "But he's good with the kids".

[MrMarkyMark]

Depends who you use, I use three agents who are very transparent on margin.
They worked out that I would find it out anyway so didn't lie.

Obviously, some don't have the luxury of just working with just a few agents.

The main issue is recruitment, rightfully or wrongfully, is one of the least regulated industries there is.

Last 4 years have been direct, so not an issue for me.
I believe "in house" agency are handling the pay roll for around 5-7%.

[sal]

Completely different animals so the comparison is worthless.

I would pay top dollar to watch Estate agent vs Recruitment agent fight in a cage

[MrMarkyMark]

I would pay top dollar to watch Estate agent vs Recruitment agent fight in a cage

With or without olive oil








r

[northernladuk]

I would pay top dollar to watch Estate agent vs Recruitment agent fight in a cage

You wouldn't. The estate agent would try his slimy tulip and then the contractor agent would rip his heart out and drink his blood because there is money involved.

[DodgyAgent]

I was watching some Watchdog type programme a while back and a letting agent had been taken to court because he was charging his tenants 1000s for repairs that he was only being invoiced 50-100 quid for.

He'd been doing it for years and amassed over a quarter of a million in this type of overcharging.

Is this not the same as what we all accept as the norm from recruitment agents?

I rent a house out and each month I get an invoice from the agent telling me how much rent my tenant has paid, less the agency's 10% fee. This is totally transparent. I can see what the other side are paying, what the agency are taking and what I'm getting.

Why can't recruitment agencies be forced to comply to this level of transparency? The good ones would have nothing to fear and the bad ones would be sorted out pronto.

Surely, this would be in the interests of all contractors and clients, whether they are sme, local government or large multi-nationals.

I really don't understand how it's allowed to happen and why all clients and contractors just accept it.

I think you will find that these people are amateurs compared to the Insurance companies, banks and retailers that you contractors seem so happy to serve.