I've seen landlords argue over less than a fiver. Not five hundred pounds, or even fifty pounds, but an amount that wouldn't buy you much more than a decent coffee and a pastry in London. I've watched perfectly manageable conversations about light bulbs, cleaning charges and small tenancy deposit deductions develop into increasingly entrenched disputes, with both sides becoming so determined to defend their position that the original amount almost becomes irrelevant.
There's a phrase that frequently appears when these situations start heading in the wrong direction, and it's one I've heard countless times throughout my career: "It's the principle of the matter."
Now, principles are important, and there are plenty of occasions when standing your ground is absolutely the right thing to do. But there's a difference between having principles and allowing a relatively minor disagreement to become more important than the outcome you're actually trying to achieve. I've seen landlords become so determined to recover a particular deduction that they end up jeopardising an otherwise straightforward deposit settlement, with tenants who were previously happy to accept several reasonable deductions suddenly questioning every single one because they feel they're being treated unfairly over something trivial.
The landlord might eventually win the argument about the light bulb, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've made a sensible financial decision. Once you factor in the time spent discussing the issue, the potential for a wider dispute and the damage to what might otherwise have been a perfectly reasonable relationship, it's worth considering whether the principle has become rather more expensive than anybody intended.
It's one of the reasons I've always believed that successful property investment requires more than knowing how to buy a property and collect the rent. It requires perspective, judgement and an understanding of when saving money is genuinely worthwhile, because the decisions that create the biggest problems aren't always the ones involving the largest amounts.
The difference between cheap and good value
I recently had SJ Taylor from Greenhouse OS on The Viking Chats, and we ended up discussing something that comes up regularly in conversations with landlords: the difference between paying less and getting better value. SJ is a Yorkshirewoman, and she introduced a phrase that's familiar to plenty of people wherever they happen to live: "Buy cheap, buy twice."
It's a useful expression, although I think there's a little more nuance to it when we're talking about property. I'm certainly not suggesting landlords should automatically choose the most expensive product, contractor, insurance policy or managing agent. Quite the opposite, in fact, because one of the responsibilities of a good managing agent is to help landlords spend their money sensibly and avoid unnecessary expenditure.
The distinction is between something that's inexpensive because it's efficient, competitively priced and well designed, and something that's inexpensive because important parts of the service have been removed or corners have been cut. Those two things can look remarkably similar on a quotation, particularly when you're comparing prices without having a detailed understanding of what's included.
You might receive three quotations for a particular job and naturally gravitate towards the lowest. Sometimes that will be exactly the right decision, because the contractor might be excellent, have lower overheads and simply offer better value than the alternatives. But sometimes the cheaper quotation excludes important preparation, uses inferior materials or doesn't properly address the underlying problem. The initial saving looks attractive until the work needs to be repeated six months later, at which point the original bargain starts looking rather less impressive.
This principle applies to almost every aspect of letting and managing a property, from maintenance and compliance through to tenant referencing, insurance and the choice of managing agent. The difficulty is that the consequences of a poor decision often don't become apparent until long after the money has been saved, making it surprisingly easy to congratulate ourselves on a good deal that hasn't actually delivered what we needed.
A small maintenance bill can prevent a much bigger one
One of the simplest examples is bathroom maintenance. Mastic and sealant around baths, showers and sinks don't last forever, and over time they can deteriorate, separate from surfaces and allow water to get into places it shouldn't. It's not particularly glamorous work, and I doubt many landlords wake up in the morning thinking about the condition of their bathroom sealant, but it's precisely the sort of thing that good property management should be paying attention to.
Replacing failing sealant at the right time is usually a relatively straightforward maintenance job. Ignore it, however, and water can start penetrating behind tiles, damaging plasterboard and affecting the structure underneath. Before long, you could be dealing with blown tiles, damaged walls, disruption for the tenant and a repair bill considerably larger than the original preventative work would have cost.
That illustrates what I consider to be one of the most important differences between reactive and proactive property management. A reactive approach waits for something to go wrong before taking action. The tenant reports a leak, somebody attends, a quotation is obtained and the repair is arranged. Sometimes that's unavoidable, because properties develop faults and unexpected problems occur however carefully a home is maintained, but many expensive issues give us warning signs long before they become emergencies.
The question is whether anybody is looking for those signs and, equally importantly, whether they're empowered to do something about them. At Base, we try to identify developing maintenance concerns, compliance requirements and potential complications before they become serious problems. Sometimes that means recommending expenditure weeks or even months earlier than a landlord might otherwise have expected, which can understandably prompt questions about whether the work is really necessary.
Those questions are entirely reasonable, and an agent should be able to explain the recommendation properly. The objective isn't to create work for the sake of it or spend a landlord's money simply because a contractor has identified something that could be improved. It's to assess the likely consequences of delaying a repair, understand the potential risks and make a sensible decision based on the condition of the property and the landlord's circumstances.
When that approach works well, the benefit is often something that never happens. There's no major leak, no extensive bathroom repair and no tenant left dealing with unnecessary disruption. It's difficult to put an exciting marketing spin on a problem that never developed, but from a landlord's perspective, avoiding an expensive repair is a considerably better outcome than receiving a wonderfully efficient response after the damage has already been done.
The real cost of being right
Maintenance is only one part of the equation, and some of the most damaging false economies I've encountered have had nothing to do with contractors or repairs. They've involved relationships, particularly when a tenancy is coming to an end and everybody is trying to agree what should happen to the deposit.
A landlord and tenant can have a perfectly good relationship throughout a tenancy. The rent is paid, the property is looked after and any maintenance problems are dealt with reasonably. Then the tenancy ends, deductions are proposed and suddenly everybody becomes a little more defensive. That's understandable, because money is changing hands, expectations don't always align and both parties may feel they have a legitimate position.
What matters is how those disagreements are handled. I've seen landlords become fixated on recovering an amount that's almost insignificant in the context of their overall investment, sometimes because they feel strongly that the tenant should be held accountable for something. There may even be a reasonable argument for the deduction, but if pursuing that small amount causes the tenant to challenge several other deductions they'd previously accepted, it's worth questioning what has actually been achieved.
You can end up spending far more time negotiating the dispute than the original amount could ever justify, and there's another important consideration. Deposit deductions aren't simply a question of what a landlord believes is fair. They need to be supported by appropriate evidence and take account of the property's condition at the start and end of the tenancy, fair wear and tear and other relevant circumstances. A landlord being annoyed about something doesn't automatically make the tenant responsible for paying for it.
This is where a good managing agent should bring some objectivity to the conversation. Our job isn't to agree with everything a landlord says simply because they're paying our fees, but to protect their interests by helping them make sensible, proportionate and defensible decisions. Sometimes that means explaining why a particular deduction is reasonable, and sometimes it means advising them not to pursue one, even when they feel strongly about the principle involved.
Those conversations aren't always comfortable, particularly when somebody is convinced they're in the right. But I'd much rather have a slightly awkward discussion with a landlord about the wisdom of pursuing a minor deduction than spend the following weeks managing an unnecessarily complicated dispute that could have been avoided with a little perspective at the outset.
The risks you don't see on the quotation
During my conversation with SJ, we also discussed the growing number of ways landlords can let and manage property themselves. I have absolutely no problem with that, because there are landlords who understand their responsibilities, have the time and knowledge to manage their properties effectively and make a perfectly reasonable decision to do the work themselves.
Equally, there are landlords who choose lower-cost services for advertising, tenant finding or referencing because they don't need the full range of services a managing agent provides. That's a legitimate choice, and I don't believe every landlord should automatically be paying for a fully managed service regardless of their circumstances.
The problem arises when somebody assumes that paying less for a service means they're receiving broadly the same protection and support, just at a cheaper price. Those are two very different propositions, and the distinction can be particularly important when it comes to tenant referencing and the financial risks associated with letting a property.
A referencing report can provide valuable information about an applicant's circumstances, but it isn't a guarantee of what will happen throughout the tenancy. People lose jobs, relationships break down and financial circumstances change, so even somebody with an impeccable history can encounter unexpected difficulties. Additional checks and appropriate insurance products may help manage particular risks, although their usefulness will depend on the circumstances, the policy terms and the responsibilities involved.
What's important is understanding what you're buying, what it covers and what remains your responsibility. If you choose to save money by taking on more of the work yourself, that's absolutely fine, but the work and the risk don't disappear simply because you haven't paid somebody else to handle them.
The same principle applies when comparing managing agents. A low management fee might represent excellent value, or it might reflect a service where inspections are infrequent, communication is poor, preventative maintenance receives little attention and problems are only addressed when they become impossible to ignore. Equally, a higher fee doesn't automatically guarantee a better service, and landlords should be wary of assuming that a prestigious brand or expensive office necessarily translates into better management of their property.
The sensible approach is to understand what actually happens after the agreement is signed, because that's when the difference between the services becomes apparent. It's relatively easy to produce an attractive brochure and a competitive fee quotation. Delivering consistently good property management over several years is a rather more demanding proposition.
What are you really paying your managing agent to do?
I think the property industry has sometimes done itself a disservice by presenting management fees as though they simply pay for a list of administrative tasks. Collecting the rent, arranging repairs, conducting inspections, dealing with tenants and sending statements are all important responsibilities, but they're the mechanics of property management rather than necessarily the greatest value it provides.
The more interesting question is how well those responsibilities are carried out and what problems are prevented along the way. Does the agent spot a developing maintenance issue before it becomes an expensive repair? Do they understand the relevant legislation and identify compliance requirements before deadlines become a problem? Can they have a difficult conversation with a tenant without unnecessarily escalating the situation, and are they prepared to challenge a landlord's decision when they believe it's likely to create a bigger problem?
Those are the things I believe landlords should be looking for, although they aren't always easy to measure because successful preventative management often means something doesn't happen. There's no dramatic emergency to resolve, no furious email exchange to calm down and no enormous repair bill to explain. The property simply continues to function as it should, with the landlord enjoying a relatively uneventful investment and the tenant living in a home that's being looked after properly.
It's not terribly exciting, but that's rather the point. A landlord shouldn't need their managing agent to perform heroics every month, because ideally the business of owning and letting a property should be as straightforward as circumstances allow. They should be able to trust that somebody competent is paying attention, making sensible decisions and dealing with things before they become unnecessarily complicated.
Of course, that doesn't mean every issue can be prevented or that an agent can guarantee a problem-free tenancy. Property ownership involves risk, buildings deteriorate and people sometimes behave unpredictably. But there is a considerable difference between an unavoidable problem and one that becomes unnecessarily expensive because nobody noticed the warning signs or acted on them in time.
We're not the cheapest, and we're not trying to be the most expensive
I've always been comfortable with where Base sits in the market. There are agencies charging considerably lower fees than we do, often because they operate a different service model with different levels of involvement. There are also agencies charging more, sometimes because they offer a genuinely different service and sometimes because they're supporting the costs associated with a particularly elevated brand.
A flagship office in Mayfair and a fleet of branded Minis don't pay for themselves, after all, although I'm not suggesting there's anything inherently wrong with that approach. Different customers want different things, and there's room in the market for businesses that serve those preferences well. It's simply not what we're trying to be.
If you'll forgive a slightly indulgent watch analogy, we're not trying to be Sekonda, but we're not trying to be Patek Philippe either. We're much closer to a Breitling or a TAG Heuer, offering something thoughtfully designed, properly made and priced to reflect what you're actually getting rather than simply the badge on the front.
That's how I think about Base. We're a boutique agency, and we take our responsibilities to landlords and tenants seriously. We want to deliver excellent service, use good technology, employ knowledgeable people and make sensible commercial decisions, but we don't believe that quality requires unnecessary extravagance, just as we don't believe keeping fees low should mean cutting corners.
For me, value sits somewhere in that balance. It's about paying a fair price for something that does the job properly, delivers the outcome you need and doesn't create unnecessary problems further down the line. When you're managing an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, that distinction becomes particularly important, because the cost of poor decisions can quickly dwarf the savings that originally made them attractive.
Sometimes the best financial decision is to spend the money
Property investment involves a constant stream of financial decisions, some substantial and others relatively small. Refinancing, major refurbishment and deciding whether to sell can have significant long-term consequences, but so can the everyday choices involved in maintaining a property, protecting rental income and managing relationships with tenants.
It's tempting to focus on each expense in isolation, particularly when mortgage costs, taxation and other pressures are already squeezing returns. I understand that completely, because not every landlord has unlimited cash available and not every recommended expense is automatically justified. That's precisely why judgement matters, and why a good managing agent should be prepared to explain not just what something costs, but what the landlord is likely to gain or protect by spending that money.
The objective should never be to spend as little as possible on every individual decision. It should be to manage the overall investment intelligently, balancing immediate costs against longer-term risks, responsibilities and returns. Sometimes the right answer is to challenge a quotation, obtain another opinion or decide that a particular improvement can wait. On other occasions, spending a relatively modest amount now may prevent a much larger expense later.
And sometimes it's about recognising that pursuing a five-pound argument simply isn't worth the time, frustration and potential damage to an otherwise sensible tenancy conclusion. That doesn't mean landlords should be careless with money or surrender every disagreement for the sake of an easy life. It means understanding that a good financial decision takes account of the whole situation rather than focusing exclusively on the amount written on a particular invoice or deduction.
After more than twenty years in this industry, I'm increasingly convinced that some of the best property management decisions are the ones nobody particularly notices. The leak that never develops, the dispute that never escalates, the compliance deadline that never becomes a crisis and the tenant who renews because they've been treated properly all contribute to a better experience of property ownership.
Those outcomes rarely come from choosing the cheapest option every time. They come from knowing the difference between saving money and spending it wisely, and having the experience, perspective and professional support to recognise which is which.
