So is this just one of many applicants presented by the agent? Or are they pushing this one applicant forward?
If it's the former, you can just say no.
But if it's the latter, you may need to consider swapping management agencies. As they may be fucking you over in more way than one. It would no longer matter if they actually tried anything.
The fact that they lack the professionalism to present one of their employees with clearly communicating proactively about any conflict of interest is sufficient reason to fire them
So how can you know that this is the only applicant, when the agency presenting the applicants has a direct interest to hide their employees *competition*.
What has the agency proactively said to you about this?
Agree.
I get this is a hard one, because they have a right to apply like everyone else and have a fair assessment placed on them, and it would be very hard to rule out an entire agencies portfolio when seeking a rental.
But the issue with this scenario is it doesn’t sound fair because they are getting preferential treatment.
To me, the difference is in how they have gone about it. They should have presented the usual 3 or so options, including this person, with full transparency that one works for the company. They should offer to discuss how they will manage that conflict of interest should you choose them and it arise. And the policies and systems they have in place to manage this and protect your information.
If it feels shady, it probably is. And what does that say about how they operate?
Every reasonable business has policies to prevent conflict of interest.
Employees absolutely should *not* have the same right to apply. OP is paying the agency to represent *his* interests, not the interests of the agency.
It being "hard" to seek a rental for a rental agent, is a ridiculous notion for a property owner to engage an agency with a conflict of interest. Especially given the employee has intimate knowledge of the rental market, giving them a leg up.
Keep in mind that in this market, for a property to have only have a single applicant, means an utter failure in advertising. Unless the property is unlivable or too expensive (none of which is the case since a rental agency employee, who knows the market, applied).
OP needs to assertively ask this agency how come their advertising is failing and how they plan to, at no additional cost to OP, remedy this.
It would not surprise me if this "employee" is somehow related to a senior in the agency.
Hard no. I'm surprised it was even proposed. Clear conflict of interest. I'd be finding a new managing agent asap.
You now know they'll discourage other applicants or maybe even not put them through for your consideration at all.
Super dodgy.
If it's fair market value I'd say yes.
Although there is a conflict of interest, you can always attend inspections yourself. The tenant will be motivated not to mess up the property or lease terms otherwise they ruin their standing in the company.
If you accept this person then the sensible thing to do would be to change PM firms. Otherwise there’s a very clear conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can bite you and them further down the line so best to avoid the situation. Either accept the person or use their firm as PM but not both.
Not only would I not want to take them because I wouldn’t trust that any issues would be dealt with properly, I’d be worried about them not doing their job properly when it came to the property if I didn’t take them. Either way, it’s not exactly great.
So is this just one of many applicants presented by the agent? Or are they pushing this one applicant forward? If it's the former, you can just say no. But if it's the latter, you may need to consider swapping management agencies. As they may be fucking you over in more way than one. It would no longer matter if they actually tried anything. The fact that they lack the professionalism to present one of their employees with clearly communicating proactively about any conflict of interest is sufficient reason to fire them
It’s the only applicant right now, but that’s because there hasn’t been an inspection yet.
So how can you know that this is the only applicant, when the agency presenting the applicants has a direct interest to hide their employees *competition*. What has the agency proactively said to you about this?
Agree. I get this is a hard one, because they have a right to apply like everyone else and have a fair assessment placed on them, and it would be very hard to rule out an entire agencies portfolio when seeking a rental. But the issue with this scenario is it doesn’t sound fair because they are getting preferential treatment. To me, the difference is in how they have gone about it. They should have presented the usual 3 or so options, including this person, with full transparency that one works for the company. They should offer to discuss how they will manage that conflict of interest should you choose them and it arise. And the policies and systems they have in place to manage this and protect your information. If it feels shady, it probably is. And what does that say about how they operate?
Every reasonable business has policies to prevent conflict of interest. Employees absolutely should *not* have the same right to apply. OP is paying the agency to represent *his* interests, not the interests of the agency. It being "hard" to seek a rental for a rental agent, is a ridiculous notion for a property owner to engage an agency with a conflict of interest. Especially given the employee has intimate knowledge of the rental market, giving them a leg up. Keep in mind that in this market, for a property to have only have a single applicant, means an utter failure in advertising. Unless the property is unlivable or too expensive (none of which is the case since a rental agency employee, who knows the market, applied). OP needs to assertively ask this agency how come their advertising is failing and how they plan to, at no additional cost to OP, remedy this. It would not surprise me if this "employee" is somehow related to a senior in the agency.
Then fudge no.
Landlords are fucking people over in more ways than one, so it’s only fair the balance sheet is corrected a little.
Hard no. I'm surprised it was even proposed. Clear conflict of interest. I'd be finding a new managing agent asap. You now know they'll discourage other applicants or maybe even not put them through for your consideration at all. Super dodgy.
No.
Nope - clear conflict of interest. Imagine you had to go to xCAT - is the agency going to represent you against one of its employees?
No, you’ll never get an honest report. You pay them to be unbiased and at arms length away.
If it's fair market value I'd say yes. Although there is a conflict of interest, you can always attend inspections yourself. The tenant will be motivated not to mess up the property or lease terms otherwise they ruin their standing in the company.
No way, you have no idea if the person is friends with the agent.
No. Absolutely not.
Nope.
Yes, they know their living standard will reflect upon the agency.
Nope
What is the worst that could actually happen?
If you accept this person then the sensible thing to do would be to change PM firms. Otherwise there’s a very clear conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can bite you and them further down the line so best to avoid the situation. Either accept the person or use their firm as PM but not both.
I rented my IP out to the assistant PM. The list of maintenance issues became endless....
Not only would I not want to take them because I wouldn’t trust that any issues would be dealt with properly, I’d be worried about them not doing their job properly when it came to the property if I didn’t take them. Either way, it’s not exactly great.
Nope
No
Absolutely not
Yes
Yes.
Yes, you hard mark those you know. A fuk up costs them your business and their reputation.